Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEARFIR in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

South West Suburban Water Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the position at Tsinanfu; and whether any casualties have happened to the British residents?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I can add nothing to the reply given on the 14th of May to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan).

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many British residents there were at Tsinanfu on this occasion?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, we have no exact information, but there are very few English people, and they are quite safe.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any communications have passed between the Japanese Government and Great Britain with respect to recent developments in Northern China; if so,
of what nature; and if he can make any further statement as to the position of British subjects in Tientsin and Peking?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As regards the first part of his question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14th of May by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) on the same day.

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to offer any opposition to the Chinese Southern Army's advance on and occupation of Peking?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British military commander has stationed troops outside the International Concessions, and, if they are not there to impede the advance of the National Army, what are they there for?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This question has relation to Peking only, and certainly it is not our intention to oppose any advance of the Southern troops on Peking. All we should take care to do would be to see that the troops did not enter the Legation quarter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the usual and most convenient way to Peking is by way of Tientsin and that if they are held off from Tientsin they cannot advance?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question ought to be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

CHINA.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Council of the League of Nations is taking steps to consider the appeal of the Chinese Government at Nanking for their intervention in the conflict between the Japanese and Chinese Nationalist troops
in Shantung; and whether His Majesty's Government have replied to the communication sent to them by the League secretariat?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an appeal for intervention in the Sino-Japanese hostilities, under Article 11 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, has been received from the Nationalist Government of China by His Majesty's Government; what action is being taken and what reply is being sent; and what instructions have been given or will be given to His Majesty's representative on the Council of the League of Nations with reference to the appeal made to the Council by the Nanking Government on this matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No communication has been addressed by the Chinese authorities at Nanking to His Majesty's Government in this country. An appeal has been addressed to the Secretary-General of the League, and he has forwarded a copy of this appeal to each of the countries represented on the Council for their information. I am not aware what action the Secretary-General is taking in connection with the appeal which has been addressed to him, or whether a special meeting of the Council will he summoned to deal with it. It is therefore premature to consider what instructions will be necessary for His Majesty's representative. As the appeal is not addressed to His Majesty's Government, it is not for them to reply to it.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Who decides whether the Council meets when an appeal of this kind is entered?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it lies with the Secretary-General to do so, probably in consultation with the acting Chairman.

Mr. TREVELYAN: In what cases would they ask that a meeting of the Council should be summoned?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the ordinary procedure when a communication is received by the Secretary-General is for the Secretary-General himself to decide in consultation with the acting Chairman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Under Article 11 of the Covenant have we not a duty to take some action when hostilities are threatened; and does not the hon. Gentleman see that when these dilatory tactics are pursued it gives an opportunity for hostilities to occur?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think the procedure is dilatory. The communication was sent to the Secretary-General and we must await his decision.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could I have an answer to the first part of my supplementary question? Under Article 11 have we not a duty to act if hostilities are threatened anywhere in the world?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not the fact that the acting Chairman of the Council has to decide for himself in the intervals between the meetings of the Council?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is what I say, that I think the Secretary-General and the acting Chairman have the duty imposed upon them of deciding what action should be taken.

Mr. DALTON: Who is the acting Chairman?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should not like to say off-hand. I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Secretary-General has received a complaint and has sent a copy of that complaint to all countries interested, does not that show that this Government ought to give instructions to their representative on the lines of the complaints submitted to them from time to time by the Secretary-General.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The communication sent out by the Secretary-General was merely sent to the various Governments for their information.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Secretary-General has accepted that complaint and circulated it to the countries subscribing to the Covenant of the League of Nations, is not that an invitation to those Governments to send on their observations on the matter, and, if we are sending on observations in reply to the communications our Government receive, surely instructions are necessary?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think the hon. Member must take it for granted that nothing is going to be done. We must await the decision of the people upon whom the duty is thrown of taking a decision.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I believe this is a matter which has been raised before, but I would like your guidance on it. This is the day for the Foreign Secretary to answer questions addressed to his Department, and, without wishing to cast any reflections on the Under-Secretary, may I ask you whether there are any means by which we can ensure the attendance of the Foreign Secretary to answer the questions put to his Department?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member knows that the Foreign Secretary frequently has important and urgent business to attend to.

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: Is the Chinese Government at Nanking in a position to call on the League of Nations? If it is not, through not being the recognised Government of China, can we not take some steps by which it can be recognised as such?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question ought to be put on the Paper.

COUNCIL MEETING.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to attend the council meeting of the League of Nations in June next?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir.

LONDON OFFICE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the duties of the officials of the League of Nations branch in London; and whether there are similar offices in the other capitals of Europe and the world?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the main duties of the League of Nations office in London are to supply information respecting the aims and work of the League and to provide clerical assistance for senior members of the League Secretariat when on duty in London. This office also assists the
various departments of the League Secretariat in obtaining such statistics or other information as they may require from this country. Similar offices are established in Paris, Rome, Tokio and Berlin.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the necessity for checking expenditure does the hon. Gentleman consider that these offices are necessary and could not the duties be performed by one instead of half-a-dozen officials and without renting a large house for the purpose?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My hon. and gallant Friend must remember that a very large part of the outlay is paid by other nations. We pay only quite a small proportion of the cost of the London offices.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion we pay?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Off-hand, I should say about one-sixth.

ECONOMIC CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the position of His Majesty's Government as regards the British representation on the Consultative Committee of the Economic Organisation of the League of Nations, whether any of the delegates represent His Majesty's Government; and whether any instructions have been issued to such delegate or delegates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The British members of the Economic Consultative Committee of the League of Nations are appointed by the Council of the League to serve in their personal capacity. They are not representatives of, and consequently do not receive any instructions from, His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING IBN SAUD (BRITISH MISSION).

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foregn Affairs what was the reason for the inclusion of an officer of the Royal Air Force in the mission to the King of the Hedjaz and Nejd?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have been
asked to answer this question. As it seemed probable that the recent air operations against Akhwan raiding parties in Iraq would come up for discussion during the conversations between Sir Gilbert Clayton and His Majesty King Ibn Saud, His Majesty's Government thought it advisable to attach to the Mission an officer of the Royal Air Force who could advise 6ir Gilbert Clayton on technical questions affecting that Service. In addition to his technical knowledge the officer selected has had considerable experience on the western frontier regions of Iraq and is fully acquainted with the local tribal situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARTHQUAKES, BULGARIA AND GREECE (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. MACKINDER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will propose to the Council of the League of Nations that, in view of the losses due to the earthquakes, some financial assistance should be given to Bulgaria and Greece?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, prompt offers of financial assistance have already been made by various Governments. As regards Greece, where I understand the damage is less serious than in Bulgaria, His Majesty's Navy has already rendered material assistance at Corinth, and as regards Bulgaria perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the reply which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is giving to-day to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby). In the circumstances it is to be hoped that there will be no necessity for considering the advisability of placing the question of financial assistance before the Council of the League when it meets on the 4th of June.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there have been recent cases in which expenses incurred with private merchants in this country by foreigners enjoying diplomatic privileges have been ultimately met out of administrative funds at the disposal of the
Foreign Office; and whether he can state the precise designation of these funds and the amounts which have been disbursed for this purpose during the past, few months?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. No funds at the disposal of the Foreign Office have been expended in the manner suggested.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the attention of the Foreign Office been drawn to the detailed statements appearing in the American Press and despatched from London by London representatives? If there be no foundation in fact for these statements, will the hon. Gentleman in the interests of good relations between this country and Afghanistan issue an official denial of them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I had great difficulty in understanding to what the hon. Member refers. If he will kindly send me the references in the articles, I will look into the matter.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not already within the knowledge of the Foreign Office that considerable public attention has been given in the foreign Press to detailed statements regarding the late visit of the King of Afghanistan?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I can only say that no such funds as are described by the hon. Member in his question have been used.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member say that the Foreign Office are not aware of these publications in America and elsewhere?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the hon. Member will specify exactly what he means and will put a question, I will look into the matter.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I hand the hon. Member a complete dossier of these statements will he look into them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN GULF (SLAVE TRADING).

Mr. THURTLE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a report in reply to his inquiries regarding the prevalence of slave trading in the Persian Gulf?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Preliminary reports have been received, according to which, while slavery still exists in Persian Baluchistan, conditions on the British side of the frontier are satisfactory. Individual cases of slave traffic between Persian Baluchistan and the Persian Gulf occasionally occur, but there is so far no evidence of any extensive traffic. Inquiries are being pursued, and further reports from British officials in this area are awaited.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OARS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that boats oars supplied for use in His Majesty's ships are manufactured in the United States of America; and why these oars are not made in the Royal Dockyards?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): A certain proportion of the boats oars used in the Navy are manufactured from Canadian spruce at Devon-port and Portsmouth Dockyards, but as regards ash oars these are purchased in America as English ash is not available, the supply being unequal to the demand for it for other purposes. It would, of course, not be economical to pay freight from America on a considerable quantity of ash logs which would subsequently be cut to waste in the process of manufacture.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if it is necessary for technical reasons to use oars made in the United States?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It is not a question of the oars being made in the United States, but of the material of which the oars are made, and the particular ash that comes from America has been found by experiments to be suitable for oars for certain purposes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the golden age of the British Navy there was no United States at all, and how did we get on then?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Ireland supplies an excellent ash?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will certainly make inquiries about Irish ash.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman also aware that there is a far better ash in the West of England which he can get very close to the Devonport Dockyard?

ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARIES (PENSIONS)

Sir BASIL PETO: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has, as yet, arrived at a decision in respect to a joint deputation of the representatives of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the Mercantile Marine Service Association and the Marine Engineers' Association, which attended at the Admiralty over two years ago, and urged the necessity of a pension or superannuation scheme, as in similar vessels elsewhere, for the masters and navigating and engineer officers serving in the vessels attached to the Royal Navy known as Royal Fleet auxiliaries; and, if so, what is the nature of his decision?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The matter is still under consideration, and I regret that I am unable now to give a reply; but every effort is being made to reach an early decision.

Sir B. PETO: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the principal oil-carrying fleets in private hands have superannuation schemes attached to their companies, and therefore, so far as this practice is concerned, His Majesty's Government are behind that of private enterprise?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am aware of the fact to which the hon. Member alludes, and I agree that we must try to get a scheme going if we can as soon as possible.

CAPTAIN COOK (BICENTENARY CELEBRATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that arrangements are being made to celebrate in October next the bicentenary of the great navigator Captain Cook at his Yorkshire birthplace and home of Marton; and whether, in view of Captain Cook's great services, he will favourably consider Royal Naval representation at the celebrations in his memory?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Arrangements will be made for one of His Majesty's ships to be off the coast near Middlesbrough as soon as the definite date of the celebrations is known.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "NELSON."

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any additional claims have been received for the construction of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson"; what is the amount of these claims; whether the Admiralty has already paid, or intends to pay, any sum in addition to the contract price; and how the cost of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" compares with the cost of His Majesty's Ship "Rodney"?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. and gallant Member is presumably referring to the statement recently made by the chairman of the contracting company. As far as that claim is concerned, the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not think it would he in the public interest, to, reply to the remainder of the question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not be possible for some of those losses to be recovered from the authors of the general strike?

Mr. MACLEAN: Before anything is done by the Government regarding the claims referred to by the chairman of this company, when building this ship, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take the House of Commons into his confidence, and have the matter discussed here, because it would be unfair to other firms who estimated for this job if they were cut out by a firm who underestimated, and whose loss was then made good by the Government?

MEAT SUPPLY.

Mr. SULLIVAN: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what action he proposes to take with regard to the South American beef recently supplied by the Glasgow cold store as New Zealand meat?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The offending contractor has been removed from the list of firms eligible to be invited to tender for the supply of meat to the Navy.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to who is really liable, and is it not the case that the Cold Storage Company are in no way to blame for what happened?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not think there is any suggestion that the Cold Storage Company is to blame, but I must have notice of any further question on this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES.

Mr. DAY: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons over the age of 10 in Great Britain engaged in industry at the last convenient date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): At the population Census of 1921, out of about 19,369,000 persons returned as gainfully occupied in Great Britain, including those unemployed, 4,439,000 were classified as being in public administration and defence, professions, entertainments and sport, and personal service (including hotels and catering), and 14,930,000 in other industries. These figures include employers and managers as well as employés. Corresponding figures for a later date are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. SHORT: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons in receipt of standard and extended benefit, respectively, on the last available date prior to 19th April, 1928, and the total number subject to Section 14 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?

Mr. BETTERTON: On 26th March last there were 868,051 claims to benefit admitted or under consideration. Statistics showing the number of persons actually in receipt of benefit are not available nor can I give separate figures for standard and extended benefit. Statistics are not available regarding the number in receipt of benefit under the transitional provisions of Section 14 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927.

Mr. SHORT: How is it that the hon. Gentleman can supply this information for Scotland and not for England?

Mr. BETTERTON: We do not give any figures differentiating between standard and extended benefit.

Mr. SHORT: How is it that the Parliamentary Secretary, having supplied information showing a distinction between standard benefit in Scotland, cannot give the figures relating to England?

Mr. BETTERTON: I was not aware that we had the information for Scotland, but I am certain that we have not got it for England.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour how many training centres for unemployed men, for women and girls, and for juveniles are now in operation in South Wales and Monmouthshire; where they are situated; and the number of persons attending them on 30th April last?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply is necessarily long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

There are no training centres in South Wales for unemployed men but special

Education Authority.
Town in which Juvenile Unemployment Centre is situated.
Average daily attendance during week ended 27th April, 1928.


Boys.
Girls.


Abertillery
…
…
Abertillery
…
…
69
—


Cardiff
…
…
Cardiff
…
…
137
152


Carmarthenshire
…
…
Ammanford
…
…
92
—


Glamorgan
…
…
Aberdare
…
…
157
—





Bargoed
…
…
90
—





Maesteg
…
…
97
—





Pontypridd
…
…
84
—





Port Talbot
…
…
132
—


Merthyr Tydfil
…
…
Merthyr Tydfil
…
…
66
—


Rhondda
…
…
Ferndale
…
…
92
—





Tonypandy
…
…
105
—


Swansea
…
…
Swansea
…
…
155
—


Monmouthshire
…
…
Blaina
…
…
76
—





Ebbw Vale
…
…
96
—





Pontypool
…
…
90
—


Total
…
…



1,538
152

Mr. G. HALL: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons sent to the training centres from the Aberdare and Mountain Ash districts during the past six months, and to which centres they were sent?

arrangements have been made to enable young unemployed miners to attend the centres at Birmingham, Dudley and Bristol. 497 men from South Wales were in training at these centres on 30th April. In addition, about 30 men from that area were receiving farm training at the Claydon and Brandon centres with a view to proceeding overseas.

As regards women and girls, centres at Aberdare, Barry and Brynmawr, with accommodation for 60 women and girls were in operation on 30th April. Courses of training at Pontypool and Swansea, providing accommodation for 60, terminated on 27th and 25th April, respectively, and further courses at these centres will open in May. In addition, centres will be opened during May at Abertillery, Hengoed and Pontypridd, with accommodation for 112. These centres are conducted by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment.

The following table shows the number of Juvenile Employment Centres open in South Wales and Monmouthshire on 27th April, 1928, together with the average number attending during the week:

Mr. BETTERTON: Forty-three men from Aberdare and 32 men from Mountain Ash are in handymen training centre at Bristol. A number of others are on the waiting list. Thirteen men from Aberdare and nine men from Mountain Ash
are in training at Brandon for employment overseas.

Mr. PALING: In view of the importance of these centres and the large number of unemployed in South Wales, is it the intention of the Labour Minister to increase the number of these training centres?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. HALL: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of young men attending the juvenile training centre at Aberdare, and the districts from which they are drawn?

Mr. BETTERTON: The average number of boys who attended the Juvenile Unemployment Centre at Aberdare daily during the week ended 4th May, 1928, was 129. These boys were drawn from the districts of Aberdare and Mountain Ash.

DEAF PERSONS (TRAINING).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state approximately the number of persons who have lost their employment through becoming deafened in youth or adult life; and what provisions are available for training such persons, when necessary, in new occupations suitable to their deafened condition?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that I have no information regarding the matters raised in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it possible to get some information with regard to the scope of training institutions being extended so as to include deaf persons?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman information with regard to the training centres, but I am afraid it does not include deaf persons.

COURTS OF REFEREES (JUVENILE CASES).

Mr. HOLLINS: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, he will consider the desirability of establishing separate courts of referees for hearing the claims of juveniles under 18 years of age?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of juvenile cases, so far as can be estimated, is not likely to be such as to justify the expense of courts of referees sitting separately to deal with them. Should the number prove to be larger than is anticipated, the matter will be further considered. It is already the practice for the local education authority or juvenile advisory committee, as the case may be, to be represented if they wish at hearings of juvenile cases.

Mr. KELLY: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any particulars as to the number of persons below the age of 78 whose cases are referred?

Mr. BETTERTON: No. Sir; not without notice. If the hon. Member will give me notice, I shall be pleased to supply the information.

LOCAL ELECTIONS, OLDBURY.

Mr. WELLOCK: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any, and, if so, how many names were supplied by the Oldbury Employment Exchange for the returning officer of persons suitable for service in the recent local elections, and the number of these that were selected for such service?

Mr. BETTERTON: Five men were submitted for employment as polling clerks to the Oldbury Town Clerk by the Oldbury Employment Exchange on 29th March, of whom one was engaged.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. KELLY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether Reports have reached him from Rochdale of the refusal of unemployment pay to men who were unable to continue working at the artificial silk trade in that district, owing to the methods of production depriving them of sight, although the management of such artificial silk factories refuse to allow the workers to resume work?

Mr. BETTERTON: I understand that the practice in these cases, subject to medical evidence, is to allow benefit when the man is fit for work. I am making inquiries into the case of which the hon. Member has sent me particulars.

Mr. KELLY: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with me, or shall I put down another question with regard to this particular case?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will communicate with the hon. Member the moment I have the information for which he asks.

INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (EXEMPTION).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons over 18 years of age made a claim before 19th April last to be exempted for 12 months from the new 30 contributions condition under The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?

Mr. BETTERTON: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the transitional provisions in Section 14 of the Act. These provisions are operative without the need for any special application by the claimant, and I have no statistics as to the numbers affected.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that applicants for unemployment pay are notified as to this period of 12 months when they make their applications?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, I think that that is so.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, LEITH.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 40.
asked the Under-secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the building of a new Employment Exchange to replace the Exchange at Quality Street. Leith, is to be commenced, or what progress is being made with preliminary work?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The actual date for the commencement of building cannot at present be stated. My Department is, however, actively negotiating for the acquisition of a new site, and sketch plans of the building proposed to be erected are under discussion with the Ministry of Labour.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. SHINWELL: 53.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether in view of the increasing unemployment amongst miners, due to the pooling arrangements which have led to the closing down of pits, the Government contemplate any action to deal with the situation?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): Unemployment in the mining industry is due to economic causes. I am unable to accept the statement that pooling arrangements have increased unemployment in the aggregate, though it is possible that they may have changed its incidence.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, as the result of the closing down of pits, large numbers of miners have been rendered unemployed, and will he answer the question whether in view of these circumstances the Government contemplate any action?

Commodore KING: The first supplementary question is answered by my original answer. It may have changed its incidence. Some men may have been thrown out of work but more men are fully employed. The second supplementary question is one for the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. SHINWELL: Because of the importance of this question, I put it down to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that it was transferred to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department, can he say, as representing the Government, if it is his intention to do anything to put the matter right?

Commodore KING: I do not understand that any question to do with unemployment for the Ministry of Labour has been transferred to my Department.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is not much of this unemployment in consequence of the depreciation of our export trade in our great raw material, coal, and has not that been caused to a large extent by the action of those who recommended the general strike?

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that restriction of output is a deliberate part of the schemes which have been put into operation? Men have been thrown out of work because of that, and so far from this putting them into full work, there is actually a shortage of coal at the ports where the export coal goes.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAITRESSES (WAGES).

Mr. MALONE: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn
to the case of Miss Josephine Wilson, a waitress at a large London store, whose wages were 24s. a week, out of which she had to pay 12s. 6d. a week rent, and who committed suicide last week; and whether, as there is no trade board, he will consider what steps can be taken for the purpose of adjusting wage rates in this profession to an adequate standard?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no information with regard to this case. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on 11th February, 1926, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Sir F. HALL: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, with regard to the proposed new post at the International Labour Office for the purpose of coordinating the work of the administrative section of the department, he will state what will be the duties and the salary attached to the position and by whom the appointment will be made; and whether arrangements could be made for the British officials connected with the Labour Office to submit an annual summary of the results achieved by the activities of the Labour Office and the expenditure incurred in securing those results, with a view to such statement being issued as a White Paper?

Mr. BETTERTON: The duties of the holder of this new post will be to take charge of the present administrative and publications sections of the office. The salary, as sanctioned by the governing body, will be 38,500 Swiss francs, rising by annual increments of 2,000 to 47,000. The appointment to the new post will be made by the director of the International Labour Office, in accordance with Article 395 of the Treaty of Versailles, and it will lie with the director to decide whether the new post is to be filled by the newly appointed official or by one of the existing officials of similar rank. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that the annual reports of the director and details of the expenditure are available in published form.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that the expenses in connection with this department, after having gone down, are now steadily increasing, and has it been the particular desire of Germany that this new official should be appointed?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, it depends upon Article 395 of the Treaty of Versailles, in which it is declared that the staff of the International Labour Office shall be appointed by the director. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, our Estimates show that there is a small increase this year as compared with last year, which, speaking from memory, I think is about £2,000.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that, although previously there had been a considerable reduction, there has been during the last three or four years a continual rise in the expenditure, amounting to something like £60,000, and will my hon. Friend take steps to minimise the cost of this Department?

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think it is anything like £60,000. My recollection is that it is something like £33,000. In any case, it is the fact, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that there has been a small increase.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the appointment of this new official involve any additional cost to the British Government?

Mr. BETTERTON: We provide our quota of the general expenses of the Office. I think, again speaking from recollection, that it is about. 10.5 per cent. of the total.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

MACHINES (SLOT APPARATUS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many machines of the Royal Air Force and Auxiliary Air Force are fitted with the safety device known as the slotted wing; and how many are not so equipped?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): It is difficult to give the hon. and gallant Member any figures which would not be misleading, since the position is changing daily. I can, how-
ever, say that 80 Bristol Fighter machines have already been fitted with slot apparatus, and aircraft of this type are being modified to take the slot at the rate of six machines per week. Further, a first delivery has been made of eight machines of another type with slots incorporated in the design, and contracts are being placed for the fitting of this device to two more types of aircraft.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to fit this device to all the machines of the Royal Air Force?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, I think we shall be able to fit it to all machines. There may be one or two exceptions, but I hope that practically all machines will be fitted with it.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not this slot decrease the speed of the machine?

Sir S. HOARE: That is a difficult question to answer "Yes" or "No." So far as we can see at present, it does not interfere with the performance of the machine.

Captain GUNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, if the safety device were fitted to both wings of the machine known as the Liberal party, it would save a lot of crashes?

Mr. THURTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider safety to be a much more paramount consideration than speed?

Sir S. HOARE: In the case of military machines one has to take both into account, and I hope very much that we shall be able to harmonise both needs—the need for performance and the need for safety.

CASUALTIES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of casualties in the Royal Air Force from 1st January, 1928, to 12th May, 1928, and the corresponding casualties in the Air Forces of France, Germany, America, and Italy in that period?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the Royal Air Force, the number of deaths as a result of flying accidents during the period named was: Royal Air Force personnel, 26; Navy, 3; Army, 2. In
addition one Royal Air Force pilot was shot down in action. In regard to casualties in other Air Forces, I regret that no authoritative figures are available.

Sir W. de FRECE: Does my right hon. Friend propose to publish an analysis of the causes of these casualties?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; I do not propose to publish details further than those which I published last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIRSHIPS.

Mr. ROSE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been called to a proposal to build a fleet of airships of 6,750,000 cubic feet capacity for trans-Atlantic mail service; and will he give an assurance that no public money will be spent upon further airship development projects until R 100 and R 101 have carried out their trials and satisfied all specification conditions?

Sir S. HOARE: The whole object of the present experimental airship programme is to carry out exhaustive tests of the potentialities of large airships from the point of view of commercial air transport and defence before incurring any further commitments with new vessels. The answer to the second part of the question is, therefore, in the affirmative.

Mr. ROSE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if the Airship Guarantee Company has been granted any modification of the original contract which restricts their obligations to the sole purpose of building and delivering R 101 at Cardington, or whether the Airship Guarantee Company propose to exercise their agreed option of repurchase for the sum of £150,000?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, there has been no modification of the contract. As regards the second part, whilst there have been certain informal conversations of a quite provisional character on the subject, the company have not as yet put forward a concrete proposal for repurchase.

Mr. ROSE: May we take it that any statements made in the Press to the
effect that the Airship Guarantee Company have any other hold or claim upon the vessel except their contract terms are utterly unauthorised?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. The contract has been unchanged, and the obligations remain as they were when the contract was signed.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will this make any difference to the communication between this country and Canada, which was one of the ideas of the scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON-INDIA AIR SERVICE.

Mr. MALONE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is considered that the allocated sum of £93,000 will be sufficient to cover all expenses incurred in the London-to-India air service, which he anticipates will be operating on a weekly basis by 1st April, 1929; and how this sum is to be expended?

Sir S. HOARE: The allocation of £93,600, the figure stated in the reply to the hon. Member on the 2nd May, relates to the current financial year, and is consequently not intended to cover the cost of the weekly air service between London and India, which is expected to start about the beginning of next financial year. It represents the estimated expenditure upon subsidies payable under the existing agreement for the Cairo-Karachi service.

Mr. MALONE: Where will the money be found to complete the services which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates will begin in the next financial year?

Sir S. HOARE: I have made some provision for the initial stages in this year's Estimates, and hope to be able to make further provision for next year in next year's Estimates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What will the cost be?

Sir S. HOARE: I propose to lay a White Paper on the subject in the course of the next few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (PICTURE)

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it has yet been decided where the picture of the burial of the unknown warrior is to be placed, and when it will lie removed from its present position?

Sir V. HENDERSON: There is no present intention of removing the picture from the King's Robing Room.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that is a quite unsuitable place for it, and that it hides a really interesting fireplace?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am well aware that it hides an interesting fireplace, but the difficulty with regard to this picture is to decide in what other possible place we can put it. If there were a general feeling on the part of the House that it should be removed to one of the larger Committee Rooms, I do not think there would be any serious objection, but it is very difficult for my Noble Friend to find out what is the real feeling in the House with regard to the position in which the picture should be placed.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a number of Members have expressed a wish that this picture should be placed in Westminster Hall, where all visitors could see it at any time?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am aware that that opinion has been expressed, but there are very serious objections to putting the picture in Westminster Hall. To begin with, it is an unheated building. The lighting, also, is entirely wrong, and, finally and conclusively, it was never intended that pictures of any kind should be placed in Westminster Hall.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of physically defective children at present on the roll of London special schools and the corresponding number in 1924?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): On 31st March last the total number of physically defective children on the rolls of special schools in London was 5,944, as compared with 5,347 on 31st March, 1924. The increase in numbers as between 1924 and 1928 is mainly in respect of children attending open-air schools.

Mr. MORRISON: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of mentally defective children at present on the roll of Birmingham special schools and the corresponding number in 1924?

Lord E. PERCY: On 31st March last there were 1,165 mentally defective children on the rolls of special schools in Birmingham, as compared with 1,101 on the corresponding date in 1924.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Sir R. THOMAS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health how many and what slum-clearance schemes have been sanctioned by his Department for local authorities in Wales and Monmouthshire, and the total amount of money granted by his Department in each ease?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): One slum-clearance scheme has been confirmed in Wales and Monmouthshire, namely, that put forward by the Welshpool Town Council. The annual Exchequer contribution in aid of the scheme has not yet been fixed, but on provisional figures it is estimated at £230 a year for approximately 60 years, representing 50 per cent. of the estimated annual loss.

Mr. E. BROWN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many slum-clearance schemes are now in hand, how many authorised, and how many houses and families are affected by them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As at 30th April, 38 local authorities had been authorised to proceed with 47 slum-clearance schemes affecting 12,150 houses to be closed or otherwise dealt with. The exact number of families affected by these schemes is not known, but for their
accommodation 11,736 new houses and 156 reconstructed houses are being provided.

Mr. BROWN: Am I to understand that the 11,000 refers particularly to families cleared out from slum buildings, or is it the total figure for Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is to replace the slums.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCTORS (URGENT CASES).

Mr. DAY: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at an inquest held at Shoreditch upon Ernest Murch, of Rochford, Essex, wherein it was proved that a doctor who was summoned to attend the deceased refused to do so because the full amount of his fee could not be paid immediately by the person summoning him; and will he consider the introduction of legislation making it compulsory for doctors to attend urgent cases and the payment of their fees to be made from the public funds?

Sir K. WOOD: I have not seen the evidence in this case, but it appears from a Press report that the Coroner, who heard the evidence, was not satisfied that the facts were as alleged in the first part of the question. My right hon. Friend does not consider it desirable to submit proposals to Parliament on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. DAY: Can any action be taken in cases of this kind?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has put forward a particular case. I cannot answer on the general question.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make investigations to see whether the facts put forward were true?

Sir K. WOOD: It is very difficult to ascertain exactly, but I do not think it is anything more than an exceptional case.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST INDIA RAILWAY (DISPUTE, LILLOOAH).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has now received any Report of the magisterial inquiry into the shooting of railway men in the Lillooah district at Bamangachi; and whether the superior
European staff was called out to take part, and did take part, in shooting the Indian workers on strike?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Two inquiries were made by the District Magistrate. One was a judicial inquiry into certain complaints made by strikers, which were dismissed as unfounded; the other was a Departmental inquiry into the whole case. Both the order passed in the judicial inquiry and the Report in the Departmental inquiry, which is submitted through the Commissioner, were delayed owing to the magistrate's illness. My Noble Friend has just learnt that an advance copy of the Report has now been received and is being considered by the Government of Bengal. The European staff was not called out to take part, and did not take part, in the firing.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the Noble Lord explain whether the Press reports about the magisterial inquiry are correct, and which conflicting reports are correct and which are wrong as to the guilt of the Army officer in conducting the shooting operations?

Earl WINTERTON: At the judicial inquiry the magistrate found that the complaints were not justified, and criticised in strong terms the manner in which they were brought forward. Also, according to the Press reports, in the course of certain obiter dicta he referred to the action of one of the British officers concerned, but I am not prepared to make any statement upon the actual words he used till I have seen the full Report, which will reach us from the Government of India.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAIL SERVICES.

Mr. ROSE: 45.
asked the Postmaster-General if he has offered to pay a contribution for all mail matter carried by airship from this country; and, if so, the amount offered per pound carried?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): If and when a regular airship service from this country is established, I shall be prepared to use it on the ordinary conditions applicable to air mail services, that is to say, it would be advertised as available for
letters and parcels surcharged with an appropriate air fee. The payment to be made for the carriage of mails would be a matter for negotiation and the air fee to be charged to the public would depend on the terms agreed. I should make it clear that no question of subsidy arises in this connection, as any payment made by the Post Office would strictly represent remuneration for services rendered.

TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 46.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the number of applications made to instal telephones in London which have not yet been completed?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Excluding cases awaiting applicants' instructions to proceed, there were 3,294 orders on hand at 30th April last. Over 6,000 orders are completed in an average month in London.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is there any special reason for the delay in installing them?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I always like to keep a fortnight's work in hand in order to spread the work regularly.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 47.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the average period in London and the provinces which elapses between receiving an application to instal a telephone and the actual connection with the exchange?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that the statistics available do not permit of the computation of the average desired by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I can say that over 30 per cent. of all orders are being completed within one week, and nearly 75 per cent. within three weeks of receipt.

TELEGRAMS (IRISH FREE STATE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 48.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the 50 per cent. increase in the cost of inland telegrams in the Irish Free State, he is going to increase the cost of telegrams between this country and the Irish Free State?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This matter is under consideration, but I can say nothing further at present.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase the charges?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The matter is under consideration, but I can say nothing further at the moment.

RATING RELIEF (RAILWAYS).

Mr. KELLY: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the figure which is estimated as the amount of relief to the railway companies in October, 1929, consequent on the Budget proposals; if the figure for each company has been estimated; and does it take into account railway shops and running sheds?

Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement on 24th April, the rating relief which it is proposed to accord to the railway companies is estimated at not less than £4,000,000 a year. I am not in a position to give figures for individual companies. With regard to the last part of the question, I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Bill shortly to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. KELLY: If productive industries are the ones concerned, surely the Government must have made up its mind with regard to railway shops and sheds?

Viscount CURZON: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. It was reaffirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech and by the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 57 and 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the proposed scheme for small holdings on the Shiel estate was for ground occupied by the proprietor or by the lessee of the shootings;
(2) the estimated cost of the proposed scheme of establishing small holdings on Glenshiel deer forest; whether the estimate was more costly than other schemes of a similar
nature; and, if so, whether he can state the excess sum?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am in communication with the Board of Agriculture with regard to the matters referred to in these questions. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his questions a few days hence.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the right hon. Gentleman has already informed the House in reply to a question put to him by me that the cost of this particular scheme was excessive, is he not in a position to name the exact sum now without waiting until a later period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must point out to the hon. Member that details of many of these land schemes are of necessity in the Edinburgh office, and it is very inconvenient for hon. Menibers to ask me to answer a question at a single day's notice.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has been having questions dealing with this matter put to him from day to day, and, since he knew that this particular matter was going to be put to him to-day, had he not ample time in which to get the information quite easily from Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has answered two questions, and I should like to know what is the reply to my first question, No. 57.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I told the hon. Gentleman that I am in communication with the Board of Agriculture with regard to the matter to which it refers.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Reports of the various Government Departments in Scotland for 1927 will be published?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I gave information with regard to the Annual Reports of the Board of Agriculture, the Scottish Board of Health, the Fishery Board and the Scottish Education Department in my replies on Monday and Tuesday. As regards the other Departments, the Report of the Scottish Land Court for 1927 has already been published and that of the Prison Commission will be published next week. It is hoped that the Report of the Trustees for the Scottish National
Galleries will be published in June. The Reports of the General Board of Control and of the Registrar-General for Scotland will be somewhat later.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET SUGAR FACTORIES (EFFLUENT).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any research has been made by his Department for the purification of effluent from sugar-beet factories; and the results of the experiments?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): During the 1927–28 beet sugar manufacturing campaign the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research carried out, under the supervision of the Water Pollution Research Board, working scale experiments on the biological treatment of effluent from one of the largest beet sugar factories in the United Kingdom. Some information about the experiments was given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) on 5th December last. At the same time fundamental scientific work on the subject has been and is being carried out at the ltothamsted Experiment Station. The results of the work, covering the period to the end of the 1927–28 manufacturing campaign, are promising, but the Board consider that they cannot yet be regarded as conclusive and the experiments will be continued during the 1928–29 manufacturing campaign.

The NUMBER of WORKERS employed on AGRICULTURAL, HOLDINGS above one acre in extent in the County of Stafford as returned on 4th June, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 are as follows:—


Year.
Regular Workers.
Casual Workers.
Total Workers.


Males 21 years and over.
Males under 21 years old
Women and Girls.
Total Regular Workers.
Males 21 years and over.
Males under 21 years old.
Women and Girls.
Total Casual Workers.




No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.


1927
…
8,248
3,285
1,442
12,975
1,490
365
516
2,371
15,346


1926
…
8,287
3,315
1,478
13,080
1,889
432
593
2,914
15,994


1925
…
7,903
3,277
1,354
12,534
1,954
511
650
3,115
15,649


1924
…
7,895
3,555
1,492
12,942
1,794
478
691
2,963
15,905


1923
…
7,454
3,446
1,414
12,314
1,487
493
525
2,505
14,819


1921
…
7,943
3,644
1,670
13,257
2,233
529
681
3,443
16,700

NOTE.—These statistics were not collected in 1922.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of agricultural workers employed in the county area of Staffordshire in 1927: and the comparative numbers for the preceding five years?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the first figure, and the last figure?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is really very awkward to deal with the figures, as there are about 50 different figures.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the constant reduction in the number of agricultural labourers employed, and that in various districts there are agricultural labourers who are unable to find work?

Mr. GUINNESS: I can tell the hon. Member that the regular workers have shown a steady increase in the last few years. The figures were: In 1925, 7,900; in 1926, 8,200; and in 1027, 8,200.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how much of the increase is due to beet sugar factories that have been established and so forth?

Following are the figures:

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MINERS).

Mr. TINKER: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, owing to the short time worked in the coal mines, the average earnings over a period of three years brings the amount of compensation to be paid in fatal accidents (total dependency case) much below the maximum figure of £300 under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, in view of this, will he consider amending the Act so as to raise the present minimum of £200 to £250?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have no information to the effect suggested in the question. On the contrary, certain inquiries I have made indicate that in the great majority of total dependency cases occurring in this industry during 1926 and 1927 the compensation payable—apart from any children's allowance and without making any deduction in respect of compensation already paid to the deceased workman—reached the maximum of £300, and that where less than the maximum was paid, this was due, as a rule, to the deduction of payments already made.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in two recent cases with which I have dealt, in one case the average wage was 28s. a week and in the other 18s. 6d. a week, and that the figure I mention of £250 would only represent an average wage of 32s. a week? Is that too much to ask to be paid?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member has any cases, surely the better plan is for him to send them to me, and I will inquire into them. He has merely put down a question and given me no details.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the law cannot be altered by him? It is a question of the average weekly wage, and although I am making no complaint of what is being paid by this firm, the fact is, the amount only reaches a figure of £200. I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to increase the minimum to £250.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I clearly could not ask the House to make an
alteration in the Act of Parliament unless I had more information than I have at present. If the hon. Gentleman has information he should let me have it.

Mr. TINKER: The Holman Gregory Report recommended it.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES (WORKING CONDITIONS).

Mr. KELLY: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will investigate the health conditions of the workpeople employed at the artificial silk factories of the British Visada Company and the Bulmer-Rayon Company, in view of the fact that certain workers have been blinded temporarily and have had to be led home?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The conditions at both these factories have been carefully investigated and found to be generally satisfactory. A number of cases of conjunctivitis (inflammation of the eyes) mostly of a very slight character, have occurred among the workers and considerable difficulty is being experienced in eliminating this trouble, but I am assured that in both cases the managements have shown themselves willing and anxious to take every necessary step and that the conditions have been much improved.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman following up these reports very closely, and is he aware that there are instances of men having been temporarily blinded on six or seven occasions, and having to be led home from their work because of the loss of sight due to the method of production at these works?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Let me read to the hon. Member a sentence from the last report, dated the 1st of the month, from my district inspector:
Great improvements have been made in the ventilation of the Viscose spinning room and cases of conjunctivitis are becoming less frequent and less severe.
I can assure the hon. Member that constant inspection is taking place to find out this disease and to deal with it and get rid of it if we can.

Mr. KELLY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but my reports are as recent as the 5th of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMING MACHINES.

Mr. HASLAM: 64.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of recent decisions that such games as hoop-la and darts for prizes and coconut shies at fairs and shows are illegal, he proposes to introduce legislation for the purpose of legalising these amusements?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the reference is to the proceedings at the London Sessions in January against Patrick O'Brien, who pleaded guilty, I understand that the decision of the deputy-chairman was that the use of a certain gaming machine made the whole establishment a common gaming house, so that all the games therein, including darts and hoop-la, but not, I think, coconut shies, became unlawful. I last week received a deputation on the matter and am considering their views.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is hoop-la?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not sure whether it means anything going through the hoop or not.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is there any joy in it?

Mr. HASLAM: In view of the very large number of His Majesty's subjects interested in these innocent amusements, cannot my right hon. Friend make some reassuring statement on the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said that I received a deputation of several Members of Parliament last week on the subject, and I have asked my legal department to get me out a full statement of the law on the subject.

Sir F. HALL: Has not the law been stretched a little too far, and is my right hon. Friend aware that the Court of Appeal has heard the case of a whist drive held on behalf of a charitable institution?

Mr. SPEAKER: That arises on the next question.

Sir F. HALL: I mean it is getting a little bit too thick.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHIST DRIVES.

Major EDMONDSON: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the decision given in the King's Bench Divisional Court on the 11th instant with regard to the illegality of progressive whist drives; and whether he proposes to take such steps as will make it possible for this amusement to be continued as in the past?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This judgment has not yet been fully reported, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that a whist drive was held unlawful so long ago as 1912 and possibly earlier. At the moment I do not propose to take any special action in the matter.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the many restrictions and interferences which he and his colleagues have imposed on the sports and recreations of this country, they are regarded by the population as a Government of killjoys and that he himself is known in certain quarters by the epithet "Kill Joy Jix"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am obliged to the hon. Member for a piece of information of which I was not aware.

Mr. MAXTON: I thought you ought to know.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The decision of the Court in this ease dates from 1912, when this Government was not in office at all. Only the other day the decision was confirmed by the present Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues. All I can say at the moment, after making inquiries in my legal department, is that it seems that nothing can be done without an alteration of the law by Act of Parliament. I cannot over-ride the decisions of the Courts of Law.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these whist drives are very harmless amusements and that they keep people
out of mischief, and can he not take some steps to make them legal by passing an Act of Parliament?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a matter for the House of Commons. I have no objection to whist drives, they are a very innocent amusement, but I am bound to administer the law, and the police are bound to administer the law as laid down by His Majesty's Judges.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman wink his eye at them?

Mr. HASLAM: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that he will introduce legislation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must wait until the case is fully reported in the Law Reports, and then I will consider the whole question. I cannot at this stage of the Session promise any legislation. I shall be able to make a further statement, perhaps, in a fortnight's time.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether ordinary whist drives are illegal or only whist drives for prizes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the decision of the Lord Chief Justice depends entirely upon the question whether there is a money prize given for the whist drive.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In view of the great uncertainty on the part of the pro-motors of whist drives, and in view of the uncertainty in regard to cocoanut shies and hoop-la, and as these things are almost the main Conservative propaganda in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman take action?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOURED SEAMAN (REPATRIATION).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 66.
asked the Home Secretary under what statutory or other authority he refused leave to land, and subsequently sent back to West Africa, the British seaman John Zarlia; whether he was aware when the order was made that this man has a wife and family in Liverpool; and whether he will now allow this man to return to England, where he has been domiciled for 10 years, to maintain his family?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This man was dealt with under the Aliens Order, 1920, which provides that leave shall not be given to an alien to land in the United Kingdom unless he is in a position to support himself and his dependants, and that an alien to whom leave to land has been refused shall be removed from the United Kingdom by the master of the ship in which he arrived or, if directions for the purpose are given by the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, by the owner or agents of that ship. As I informed the hon. Member on Monday last there was no evidence that the man was not an alien and I have ascertained that he had been treated as an alien throughout the period of his employment with Messrs. Elder Dempster. I see no reason to take any steps to facilitiate his return to this country. I am informed that there is no prospect that he would be able to contribute to the support of his wife and child here.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is not an alien and that he was repatriated to a British dependency? If he is an alien, why was he sent back to a British dependency? What is his wife and family to do in England, where he has been domiciled for 10 years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member must not make statements unless he is prepared to prove them. The information of my Department at Liverpool is that there is no evidence of any kind that he is a British subject. He has been treated in the course of his employment by the firm, for many years, as an alien, and he has not attempted to establish his right to be a British subject. When he was told by Messrs. Elder Dempster and Company that they did not want him any more in their businesss and that he must go back to West Africa, he did not suggest that he was a British subject.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these coloured seamen who are British subjects are not able coherently to state their case themselves, and are they not entitled to some protection? Is it not a fact that this man was repatriated to a British dependency? Is not, that prima facie evidence that he is a British subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES (PROFITS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the profits of British brewers and distillers for the year 1913–14 and for last year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The profits of brewing concerns for accounting years ended in the Income Tax year 1926–27 are estimated at £24,500,000. As regards the year 1913–14 an investigation made in 1923 resulted in an estimate of the profits of the year 1913–14 as £9,970,000. The estimates given in reply to previous questions as to the profits in post-War years call for revision in the light of the fuller information now available as regards those years, and the profits of the years 1920 to 1923 are now estimated as follow:





£


1920–1921
…
…
29,000,000


1921–1922
…
…
19,750,000


1922–1923
…
…
22,250,000


1923–1924
…
…
23,250,000


In all cases the figures include, in addition to brewing profits, any profits arising from the carrying on of any trade ancillary to the main business. The figures represent the profits as computed for the purpose of Income Tax without any deduction in respect of Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax paid, but less the amounts allowed in respect of the wear and tear of machinery and plant. I regret that I am not in a position to furnish any information regarding the profits of distilleries.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that these figures reveal that the profits of the brewers and distillers have risen from £9,000,000 in 1913 to £24,500,000 last year, is this considered a suitable productive enterprise for the Government recommendation that three-quarters of the rates on the industry should not be paid?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point can be raised in debate later.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL JURORS.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 39.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that all persons whose names are in the
jurors' book who are of higher degrees than esquires, or are legally entitled to be called esquires, or are bankers or merchants (but not manufacturers), or are occupiers of private dwelling-houses rated or assessed to the Poor Rate of a value of not less than £100 in towns containing according to the last census 20,000 inhabitants or upwards, or on a value of not less than £50 elsewhere, are qualified to serve as special jurors; and whether, in view of the doubt as to who are legally entitled to be called esquires, and the fact that in certain parts of outer London the £50 qualification is largely in operation, he will consider the desirability of a change in the law in this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to answer this question. I am aware of the position. I do not see my way to introduce legislation at the present time upon this subject.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS (PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for regulating the employment of young persons in particular occupations; and for other purposes connected therewith.
The object of the Bill which I desire to introduce is to enable local authorities to regulate the hours of labour for young persons. There is a definite gap in our social code regarding hours. Whereas children under 14 are safeguarded and protected by the employment of Children Act, and the labour of those over 18 years is protected by the Factories Acts and by trade regulations, the labour of young persons from 14 to 18 years of age in certain occupations is entirely unprotected and unsafeguarded. The occupations which are definitely outside labour regulations or the Factories Acts, the Shop Hours Act and the Education Act are those of van-boys, errand boys, warehouse boys, young persons engaged in refreshment houses, page-boys engaged in hotels and night clubs, and young persons engaged in cinemas. I do not wish the House to infer that all the boys working in these particular occupations are subject to abnormal hours, but the
present state of the law gives opportunities to employers, perhaps more through carelessness than anything else, to work their young employés for hours which are obviously detrimental to their health and welfare.
I do not want to make reckless charges. This question has been carefully investigated by charitable societies, and well-qualified individuals. Investigations have been conducted by the Wage-Earning Children's Committee, by Miss King, of the Women's University Settlement, Southwark, by Sir Wyndham Deedes, of Oxford House', and Miss Gardner, Secretary of COPEC, and there have come to light hours which, I think, are scandalous. There are cases of van-boys working from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., and from 4 a.m. to 5 p.m., while page-boys have been found working in restaurants until well after midnight and in night clubs up to 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
I cannot believe that there is any real economic necessity for these abnormally long hours, and I submit that we ought to think less in terms of economic necessity and more in terms of the moral welfare of these young people. Certain occupations are entirely exempt from the operation of this Bill—namely, agriculture, railway services, except service as van boys; the transport services, except service as van boys and messenger boys; employment in offices and shops, domestic service and the building and engineering trades. This Bill, which seeks to give power to local authorities to draw up regulations, follows established precedents in relying on local initiative, local public opinion and local conscience. If there is a sufficient local opinion on the subject then the local authority will be empowered to take proceedings and draw up by-laws, but, in order to obviate any abuse and to provide against any rash or over-zealous action, it is provided in the Bill that no by-laws shall become operative unless they are sanctioned by the Home Secretary. If he is not satisfied the Home Secretary will have power to hear objections and cause a local inquiry to be held.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the Bill has been drawn up in clear collabora-
tion with Government Departments. The Home Office, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education have been extremely helpful and sympathetic in the matter. In fact, I can claim that the Bill, so far as Government Departments are concerned, is entirely an agreed Bill. I may also claim that we have the sympathy of the Home Secretary himself, for in a reply to a Question about a year ago he said that he recognised the need for fuller powers to regulate the classes of employment referred to in the Bill, and Lord Desborough in another place, when this Bill was being considered, speaking for the Home Secretary, said that it was a matter which they meant to take up at the earliest possible opportunity. It shows, at any rate, that the object of the Bill has the goodwill of the Government Front Bench and generally throughout the House, and I hope there will be an opportunity for this modest yet very necessary piece of social reform to be read a First time and passed into law. I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Ammon, Mr. Briant, Mr. Morris, Sir Robert Newman, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, and Mr. Snell.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS (PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS) BILL,

"to make better provision for regulating the employment of young persons in particular occupations; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS) (No. 2) BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to the recovery of possession in certain cases of dwelling-houses in the occupation of agricultural workers," presented by Mr. Thomas Williams; supported by Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. Wilfrid Paling, Mr. Riley, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. George Hall, and Mr. Mackinder; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Lancashire Quarter Sessions Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1928.

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,215,828, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."—[Note.—£15,000,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Noble Lord, the President of the Board of Education intimated to me yesterday that he did not wish to open the Debate to-day. I am content that he should speak later, for I do not suppose that he will have very much to tell us. This has been a rather uneventful year, and the country knows now what is the fixed policy of the Government in regard to education. I think it is probably more desirable to-day to have a short, sharp and vigorous, discussion on the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. Let me first of all allude to a subject on which I think there will be very general agreement on both sides of the Committee. One thing has occurred within the last three years which meets with general approval, and that is the permanent settlement of teachers' salaries. It may be said to be rather a remarkable exploit when we consider the times in which we have been living, when there has been in other parts of our national life a persistent campaign in the Press and elsewhere to lower wages and salaries of all kinds, that in the case of the teachers exactly the opposite has taken place. An arrangement has been arrived at by arbitration and agreement which has established a
relatively high level for teachers' salaries. That arrangement has been accepted by employing local education authorities from one end of England to the other, and those who are watching what is going on in the teachers' world are aware that this new era of stability in teachers' wages is having at any rate two very good results. In the first place, there is a better class of young person coming forward and entering the profession and, secondly, the teachers are thinking more of their vocational proficiency now that their bread and butter is secured to them.
4.0 p.m.
This new salaries arrangement, although local in its form, has been national in fact. The scales have been based on the kind of schools in which teachers find themselves and not on the kind of districts in which the schools are placed. In the last few weeks there has been an anxious situation in regard to a certain part of the country. In one of the most stricken districts in Wales, in the Valley of Abertillery, the local education authority has handed over its powers to three men, and these three men proposed a cut of 10 per cent. in the salaries of the teachers. Why they did so, no one quite knows. Perhaps it was their own misguided ingenuity. It is suggested that the idea had been put into their minds by the promptings of the Ministry of Health. I do not know whether that is so, and perhaps the Minister of Education can tell us whether his colleague's Department had anything to do with suggesting this reduction? It was obvious that if one local authority were to begin breaking into the national settlement a very serious situation might be created. It would be a first-class calamity if the disastrous poverty of a few districts broke the phalanx of agreement throughout the country. I am glad to say that that danger has passed. I mention it chiefly because I want to express the hope that the danger is not going to arise of a breach of this understanding in any other part of the country. I think that the three parties in the country are agreed upon it. The Labour party expressed its determination to uphold the scale in every possible way, in a resolution passed only the other day, and, as far as we know, behind the scenes the right hon. Gentleman has been using his influence, or was
using it in this case, in order to maintain the Burnham Scale as established. In fact I think he is absolutely bound to do so, because the Conservative party in its manifesto at the General Election issued this announcement:
Where a local authority has accepted the Burnham Committee's scales of salaries and has subsequently departed from them, that authority should be made to adhere to the scales by the Board of Education.
Therefore I express the hope that, first of all, during the period of the running of the present Burnham Scales, there may be no further attempt to interfere with them, and the further hope that when the time comes for any reconsideration or revision of the scales, all parties in the country and all sections connected with education will realise to the full the advantage which this settlement has been, and will continue it in subsequent years.
Let me conic to the main situation in education in which we find ourself. We are in a period of slow movement. A few years ago there was an entire stoppage in the education machinery. The impetus of 1924 is not yet altogether lost; there is still some way on. We have in this country what is in many respects a very fine and effective system. The local education authorities have in them, what ever the dominant party may be, abundant unselfish and capable enthusiasm for developing education. There is throughout the country a band of very capable directors of education. In fact we have an educational machine which does not very easily clog. The greatest proof of its strength and effectiveness has been that, when in the last few years it has been faced with a threat of wholesale economy, the local education authorities of the country, assisted by this House, have succeeded in thwarting the great economy campaign started by the right hon. Gentleman. That great economy campaign was balked, but it has not been scotched. What is happening now is that we are going through a period of uninspiring administration, when the depression of the right hon. Gentleman's policy is felt throughout the country, although it is not able to be altogether deadly.
I want, first of all, to show how in every direction, in small things, the policy of the present Board of Education is operating for ill. I shall begin with lesser
illustrations. The right hon. Gentleman has, I suppose, acquired a good deal of merit with the Treasury this year, as he-has now begun reducing his Estimates. The expansion of 1924 has been successfully stopped. But that has not been effected without a good deal of meticulous parsimony. For instance, last year a Committee on Public Libraries sat and made an excellent report. The Committee had been presided over by Sir Frederic Kenyon. There were in that report hardly any proposals for increased expenditure of any importance, except one. It was proposed that the Central Library for Students should be strengthened, that it should be associated more closely with the British Museum, and should have its activities and stores of books enlarged in order to assist students all over the country and to assist other libraries. It was a very modest proposal, and £5,000 was suggested as an expenditure which would really enhance the effectiveness of this library and make it valuable to the whole country. The President of the Board of Education was asked about it last year, and in July he said that the proposals would be considered "with the Estimates for next year." The right hon. Gentleman added, "When that time comes we will give them the most favourable consideration that the finances of the moment may allow." In fact he approved of what was proposed. He said he was not quite certain that the £5,000 would be forthcoming. It has not been forthcoming, under the withering stinginess of the Department.
Take another case of petty meanness. The London County Council at the present time is not a riotous and revolutionary assembly. Everyone in the country is talking about playing fields. Everyone is saying that the advantages of athletics ought not to be confined to those who have means. There is a National Playing Fields Association under Royal patronage, over the meetings of which Lords-Lieutenant take the chair and declare that means ought to be found for enabling the children and young men of the working classes to have playing fields. The right hon. Gentleman's important subordinate, Sir George Newman, writes long and eloquent passages about the health of the school child and the importance of enlarged playing fields. Now comes the London County Council with a modest little proposal to expend a
sum not exceeding £500 annually in defraying the travelling expenses of necessitous pupils for athletic training. The Board's reply was:
I am to say that the Board sympathise generally with the proposal, but, in view of the existing financial conditions, they do not feel justified in approving, at the present time, the proposed expenditure.
I suppose that that statement has acquired more merit for the right hon. Gentleman from the Treasury.
I do not want to deal only with small things, but that illustration shows what is happening all over the country. One must take a few small things in order to illustrate. The final examination of students going into the profession has up to now been conducted and paid for by the Board of Education. The Board decided, I dare say quite wisely—I am not discussing that—that in future as far as possible universities should carry out the examination. I dare say that was right, but in making a change the Board saw a chance of saving a measly penny. So, whereas they had hitherto paid the expenses of these examinations, they now say that they will pay only 30s. out of the £4 or £6 which it costs to examine a student, and the students are to pay the difference. Of course there are many of the students who can manage it. But, they are not generally well-to-do people; they are largely children from very poor families, and those families very often find great difficulty in sending their children into the profession. It was unnecessary, just to save a few hundred pounds or £1,000 or £2,000 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to put this expenditure on the shoulders of the students.
I want now to come to the rather larger defects, disappointments and delays entailed in the general policy of economy. There is a growing belief in the need for looking after children before the school age. People are becoming more and more alive to the evils of home conditions in too many of our city streets, and are realising how disastrous the first two years of life are to an enormous number of children who are brought up in our industrial districts. Again, page after page of Sir George Newman's Report to the right hon. Gentleman contain protests on this subject. For instance, it is stated that 35 per cent. of the entrants into school in London now require serious
medical treatment. That means that these children want looking after. The only person who is not very appreciative of this is the right hon. Gentleman. He never has been sympathetic. The least appreciated paragraph in his first Dead Circular was the one in which he tried to withdraw the grant from children under five. He had to drop the proposal, but pressure is still being put on local authorities. The number of children in school under five years of age in the last two years has actually gone down by 40,000. I wish it had gone up by 40,000 or 80,000. Although throughout the country there is a growing feeling that nursery schools for children between three and six years of age ought to be a general requirement and not a very rare exception, at the present time there are only 26 nursery schools and only 1,367 children in them out of 2,000,000. I think it is a pity that we are not moving faster. I was in Vienna the other day, and in Vienna the best part of half the children are in what we should call nursery schools, children between three and six, and all the schools were built recently because of the appreciation of the rulers in Vienna of the fact that, in order to make a good, effective child population, you have to begin looking after them at an early age. But then, of course, Vienna is governed by Socialist wastrels!
A good many of us are getting rather impatient about the continued existence of the worst kind of school building. A list of the worst schools was finished soon after 1924. That list of schools was not by any means hardly pressed against bad schools. It was only a selection of the very worst. Many of them had been condemned even before the War. They were schools—to use a phrase, which I thought a very good one, of the President of the National Union of Teachers—which were "in such a condition as to constitute an offence against the children." Nobody has a good word to say for these ill-lighted, insanitary buildings.
The right hon. Gentleman, I agree, said that these schools have to be dealt with, but he is so very slow about it. That was in 1924. He tells us now that by 1930 the schemes of local authorities will have dealt with all the Council schools in the list, but he holds out extraordinarily vague hopes that the whole list, is going to be dealt with. I have
here the report which has just come out, and I note a phrase in it which certainly we on this side of the House will hardly regard as adequate. He says that the inclusion of a school in the list was to be regarded as "a challenge rather than as a final decision." That certainly is not the spirit in which I intended that list to be made. I intended it, at least with regard to that very limited class of very bad schools, to be a final decision, and I am sorry to see, so far as I can understand the figures which he gives, that the numbers in List A that will have been dealt with are only 35 per cent. I do not know how quickly this is going on. I can only say that I am quite certain that all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee are entirely dissatisfied with the pace at which things are going, and we do not see, as things are going, that even this worst class of school is really finally going to be remedied 10 years after they were condemned.
Many years ago the most celebrated of Board of Education inspectors, Matthew Arnold, said that there ought to be no classes over 40. I do not suppose that everybody agreed with him then, but I do not suppose there are many who disagree with him now. When the. Labour Government was in office, it established a very modest standard upon which it intended to insist with regard to the size of classes. It announced that all classes were at once to be brought below 50, and presently to come down to 40. There was a little improvement, and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman said that he entirely approved of that circular and that he proposed to go on with the policy. When that circular was issued, there were 24,900 classes where teachers were trying to teach more than 50 children, and in the first two years those numbers fell to. 21,300. At that, the reduction practically stopped, and in the last two years there has actually been an increase in the numbers of these classes of over 50, of children under 11, of nearly 2,000. That is a most lamentable thing.
Hon. Gentlemen who want to know the reasons, or rather the excuses, may turn to page 18 of the report which has just been issued. There, a series of reasons are given, but the main reason is not given. The main reason is that you cannot reduce the size of classes unless
you are ready to pay money to build more schools freely and to employ more teachers. In the last two years, there has been an increase of only 40 teachers employed on the staffs of all the schools of the nation. Of course, you cannot get a real reduction of the size of classes if that is the standard with which you are content. The right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, wishes that the classes could be reduced, but, if so, I wish he would put a little more individual pressure, such as we do not hear of his putting, on the local authorities that are to blame. We do hear of his writing letters to the local authorities and telling them: "Do you not think you could make a reduction in your expenditure, because of the very high standard of staffing which you have got? Do you not think you could reduce your staffing?" I wish he would do the opposite.
Why is it that we are pressing this? Why is it that we want to put our school houses in order and to have a really effective system of teaching, such as everybody in this Committee knows there cannot be where teachers are trying to teach classes of 50 children? I put it in this way. To me it is outrageous that our schools should not be places where all parents would be quite ready to send their children. There ought never to be any hesitation about sending any child of any parentage to a school under public control. Some day, we shall know what a grave disadvantage it is nationally that the well-to-do sections of our country send their children to one set of schools, and the rest of the population to another. I am not blaming the well-to-do to-day, because they care about their children, and they care about them a great deal too much than to send them to schools where they know that they will not get effective teaching, because of the handicap there is on the teachers, or to schools which are so badly built that they cannot rely on their living under healthy conditions. I only wish the whole population did go to these schools, because I know that if for a year all the Members of this Committee and others of the same class from which they come were to send their children to the schools of the country, they would insist within a very few months on a higher standard than they are prepared to insist on now. Perhaps it might be worth the
while of those who do not send their children to these schools to think how much less talk there might be of class war in England if the children were not separated into classes from their infanthood.
We want great changes in education. We are not content with the sort of static conditions in which we find ourselves to-day. I do not know how much the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me and how much he does not, but I very much doubt if he really agrees with me in the last thing I was saving about wishing that all children were in the same school. It did not look like it the other day when he was dealing with the Dulwich business. I am not going to talk about that. There are some of my hon. Friends who will again wish to ask him questions about the way he has permitted the Dulwich school to reduce the number of places for the sons of less well-to-do parents from 150 to 100, I think it is.
I wish we could see enterprise in any direction from the present Government. One of the most disappointing things is the way in which the Hadow Report is being dealt with. In theory, we all give lip service to the idea of secondary education for all. We all know that there is no chance of it being realised until children stay longer in school. The right hon. Gentleman has resolutely set himself against raising the school age. We cannot discuss his attitude on the main question of raising the school age because it entails legislation, but there is one side of the question of raising the school age which is very relevant At the present moment, one of the worst tragedies in our midst is the condition of the mining districts. The right hon. Gentleman knows it as well as any of us. He has been down there himself, and he has shown his sympathy.

Mr. BATEY: Sympathy?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I expect that I am right and my hon. Friend is wrong. I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown sympathy. He must also know what is the policy of the Miners' Federation. The policy of the Miners' Federation is to relieve unemployment by getting the old and the young out of the labour market. That is part of their declared
policy. Here you have a stricken industry, and stricken districts, suffering from a peculiar and local trade disadvantage. Why cannot. we do something in those districts to keep the boys in until they are 15? It is known that some of the local authorities—Durham and Glamorgan—are thinking about raising the age. The difficulties are apparent. Why could not the Government, seeing that the situation in the mining districts is so serious, seeing that there are local authorities who are thinking of raising the age, try to give them some advantages and offer them some inducements to do what they are on the point of doing, and in those districts at any rate to keep the children in school instead of sending them into the mines? Their particular form of relief of rates under the Budget proposal—which I do not want to discuss to-day—is not going to help them. It will not affect them, but there is no reason why the Government should not set their mind to advance in this direction where they find a willingness to do what has already been done in some places—to do what has been clone in Plymouth without any disadvantage to Plymouth's interests.
The difficulty of the whole position is this. The right hon. Gentleman is most ingenious in finding reasons for not doing things. I entirely agree that there is not one of these things that we want done, which is not, in the first place, exceedingly difficult and, in the second place, exceedingly expensive. I quite agree that there are two qualities necessary in a Government that is going to do anything worth doing in regard to education to-day. Such a Government must have a modicum of faith in the possibility of progress. Where on earth would the men of 1870 have been if they had only looked at the difficulties—hardly any schools and very few teachers? Yet in their imagination they saw this land of ours studded all over with schools and all the children going to those schools. They were not afraid of the difficulties. Coming to more recent days there were many of us who did not like all the legislation of Lord Balfour in regard to education in 1902. There were many things in it to which many of us objected, but at least he had vision. He had the idea that we could establish a system which did not then exist of secondary education. I want
the House of Commons to begin to believe that these things are possible—because they are possible. Take the question of the size of classes. I was in Vienna the other day and I find that in the working-class districts of Vienna there are no classes over 30. I dare say they have some advantages which we have not but they have disadvantages especially in relation to poverty which we have not. They have done it because there are people there who have the faith to do it.
Of course, I quite agree that we must be ready to spend. As long as the Board of Education is just going to be the good boy of the Treasury and is content to be praised for lowering its Estimates, we shall not get anything. We on this side of the House knew well enough in advance that the progress which we inaugurated would cost money. When my right. hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) told me that I might do this and that when there was a Labour Government in office, do you imagine that he supposed that four years after we had begun we were going to have to push down the Estimates? He knew well enough, as everyone knew, that if we were going to have a real expansion of education our country had to he ready to pay; and I believe that it is ready to pay for education as the greatest necessity and not merely as a luxury.

Mr. LOOKER: I desire to call the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to the educational problem which has arisen in Essex owing to the establishment of the Beacontree estate. The nature of that problem is quite simple and can be very shortly stated. After the War, the London County Council found themselves faced with a very urgent housing problem. There was a large mass of population who required housing accommodation and that accommodation could not be found within the area for which the London County Council is responsible. Urged on by the Ministry of Health and with the facilities provided under the Town Planning Act, they purchased a large block of land in Essex amounting to about 2,770 acres. That land is situated in the districts of Dagenham, Barking and Ilford and I think the greater portion of the estate is within the constituency of my
hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys). He has taken a great interest in this question and would be here to support me this afternoon were he not in a position, in which he is unable to give voice very often to his views in this House. Upon this area of 2,770 acres the London County Council are erecting 26,500 houses and it is estimated that, when the housing scheme is completed, there will be a population in these houses of 106,500 people. There must inevitably be a large proportion of children and this naturally raises the question of providing educational facilities.
The burden of providing those facilities will necessarily fall upon the Essex authorities. It will be necessary to provide elementary schools, intermediate schools, secondary schools and a technical college, and the estimated capital cost of the elementary portion of that programme amounts to over £500,000. In addition, there will be a net annual cost imposed on the ratepayers of Essex in respect of elementary education of something like £122,855. The Essex County Council are building 15 new large elementary schools and one large intermediate school to meet elementary educational needs, and, in addition, are enlarging a number of existing schools to provide additional places. Altogether, they are arranging for nearly 22,000 fresh school places in elementary schools to meet the needs of the influx of population from London which is being settled on this estate. The cost of this to the ratepayers of Essex is estimated to represent a rate of 9½d. in the £. In addition to the cost of elementary education, there is the cost, which will necessarily fall either on the Essex County Council or on the district authorities concerned, in respect of higher education, and the total net annual cost of that is estimated at £29,503. Upon the scale suggested by my right hon. Friend it will be necessary with this population to provide 2,128 secondary places at a cost of something like £25,500. The total net annual charge which will fall upon the rates in the districts affected is £152,503, and the annual contribution which this estate will make towards that cost is such amount as it will contribute in the way of rates on the houses. It is unfortunate from that point of view that houses for that
particular class of population are necessarily of a low rateable value, and the rateable value of the houses which are being erected is put at £14. To illustrate the effect of that low valuation, in relation to the annual provision which has to be made, I may mention that in Dagenham district alone, if the rate derived from these houses were sufficient to pay for the net annual cost involved, the houses would have to be rated at £72 a year instead of £14 a year.
I wish to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Education to what has taken place and what is taking place. The London County Council, in order to provide for the housing of the people for whom they were responsible, bought this large area of land in Essex and covered it with houses. They filled those houses with a large mass of their population for whom they were under an obligation to provide housing accommodation. Then they wash their hands of that population and leave the educational authorities of Essex to bear the whole cost of education for that population. I would point out to the Committee that this is not a case of a natural process of infiltration. This is not the process which we see going on constantly, especially around London, where population is continually drifting from one district into another. When the London County Council Housing Committee were considering this problem, they characterised it—rather airily, if I may say so with the greatest deference—as the inevitable spreading outwards of the population of London. It is nothing of the sort. It is the definite and deliberate settlement in one county of a large block of population from another. As a matter of fact, this inevitable spreading out of the population of London is going on at the same time and alongside this scheme; and if any hon. Member does me the honour of driving with me about the constituency which I represent he will see new houses springing up every day and families from London moving into the new houses.
That is a similar problem arising from natural causes, the result of the situation I am drawing attention to is that Essex has to shoulder the burden of providing the necessary education facilities for London children, which, in equity, ought to be borne by London and not by Essex, and it gets no contri-
bution from London for doing it. London is a county with a large rateable value and large potential resources to be derived from any rates which it may make. Essex, on the other hand, is a very poor county, and the bulk of its rates falls upon an agricultural district which is suffering enough from the depressed circumstances of that industry at the moment, without having the additional handicap imposed upon it of a large addition to the rates like this. I submit to my right hon. Friend that this is really a problem which demands serious attention at the hands of his Department. We have been told by his Department that the problem is different in degree but not in kind from many other similar problems existing throughout the country. I very respectfully deny that altogether. I say that there is no problem comparable to this which has yet been pointed out to me as existing anywhere else. It is true that we have natural infiltration, and it is true that some of our large cities have been obliged to acquire tracts of land outside the area of the local authorities to house their population, but those tracts of land have been within their own county.
I have yet to hear of any other instance in which one county has deliberately and definitely settled a large mass of its population inside the area of another county and left that other county to bear the burden of the necessary educational facilities. If it is necessary for any one county, in fulfilment of its natural obligation of providing for its surplus population, to form settlements of this description in other counties, it is only right that special assistance should be given in some form to the county which suffers from an enforced migration of this kind. I submit that the position of Essex in respect to this burden, which has been imposed upon it without any consultation and without any chance of making representations with regard to the rating effects, ought to receive special consideration, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if there is no form, either by way of an increased grant or otherwise, by which be can do something to come to the financial assistance of the Essex authorities and ratepayers in respect of the additional burden imposed on them of providing educational facilities for this population which has been compulsorily transferred into their midst.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not want to allow the Debate to-day to be diverted from the larger problem of education to the local difficulties of the County of Essex. I appreciate those difficulties, but they are common to all districts where a large working-class population is congregated.

Mr. LOOKER: That is a point which is always made against us, but can the hon. Member tell us of a single county in which an exactly similar set of conditions has arisen, of land being bought and a big population planted from one county to another?

Mr. R. MORRISON: The London County Council have not only got estates in Essex, but they have large estates in Middlesex.

Mr. HARRIS: I am a London Member, and I am also a member of the London County Council, and I am not ashamed to say that I am a member of the housing committee of that council, and that I have encouraged, and shall continue to encourage, people in over crowded areas in the centre of London to spread out into the undeveloped districts round about London. I think that is in the best interests of the populations concerned.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will you help in the expenditure involved?

Mr. HARRIS: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait, I will answer that question. Already the London ratepayer is subsidising the rent of every single house that the London County Council has constructed in the County of Essex. There is not a single tenant who is not receiving something in the form of a special subsidy out of the London rate payers' pockets towards his rent, and that is a very considerable contribution. As to the larger question, I may say that the London County Council was quite ready to take in the surrounding districts. A Royal Commission was set up, and the present Minister of Health was a member of it. The County of Essex and all the surrounding local authorities, however, objected to any change in local government areas, and did not want to part with an inch of their ground. If it is thought desirable now that there should be a change of areas, let the County of Essex come forward and ask
for another Royal Commission, and let them support the extension of the boundaries of London to include Greater London. That is the only practical solution. I think they have to thank themselves for their present difficulties, which are largely due to their lack of foresight. On the other hand, I think that all these areas, these large working-class districts, require special treatment. We, on this side, have always claimed that there was a need to deal with the rating problem. The Government are now doing so, though not in the right way, and the hon. Member's quarrel is really with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is not going to help the small householder, who will get no relief of rates. The hon. Member would be well advised to fight out his problem more with the Chancellor of the Exchequer than with the President of the Board of Education.
It would be a pity, however, on this, the one clay on which we can deal with education, that we should be diverted to what are important but, after all, local problems. I have always on these occasions fulfilled the rôle of the optimist, as opposed to that of the pessimist taken by the ex-President of the Board of Education. On two or three occasions we have attacked the President of the Board of Education very vigorously and found fault with certain reactionary proposals which he has put forward, but I believe that we have met with considerable success. During the last 12 months the Minister has been, I will not say a changed Minister, but at least an improved Minister. He has ceased to issue so many circulars. The printing press has been comparatively quiet. I do not know what the number of circulars is this year, but it has certainly been exceeded in every preceding year, and the Noble Lord has been content to be quiescent and has been making fewer speeches. I am a great admirer of his oratory and think that at times he has become very eloquent, but I also think that on the whole he is wise to be quiet, and to attend to the ordinary, humdrum machinery of his office. I think he has learned something, that he has been educated by contact with the realities of education throughout the country, and that the more he visits the schools and institutes the better. I admit that he is always very willing to do that, and I am glad to know that he is going to
visit an institute in the borough which I represent, a visit which will, I hope, do something to complete his education. I say that the less he issues circulars and makes speeches, and the more he attends to the routine of administration, the more is he likely to go own to posterity as a successful Minister of Education.
I noticed that the ex-President of the Board of Education made special reference to nursery schools, and I think they are very worthy of the attention of the Committee. The Education Act of 1918 made special provision for nursery schools, and educational experts strongly recommended them, but local education authorities for the last eight years have hesitated to embark on any large policy in that direction. Now, however, I think public opinion is ripe. We have had some experience, and I think that all of it proves that these schools are economical to work, that they serve their purpose, and that they do an immense good to the child population. We have only 26 such schools in existence, 11 of which have been provided by private enterprise. That is a very small result for eight years, and, as has already been pointed out, we have the glowing recommendations of the Medical Officer of the Board of Education, Sir George Newman. In his last Report, on "The Health of the School Child," he has constant references to the question, and we might almost say that he regards nursery schools as the cure for almost all the ills of the child population. He says, on page 38:
The remarkable improvement in the health and nutrition of children attending nursery schools may be attributed to medical supervision, a suitable dietary, sufficient rest, and an open-air regime.
He goes on to say:
The activities of the nursery school are two-fold—medical, social and educational—(particularly the elements of training in good habits). The chief aim is to provide the right environment, physical, mental and social, for the proper development of very young children. Experience shows that fears lest the removal of such children from the home would result in lessened parental responsibility have no foundation.
5.0 p.m.
As I say, we have only 26 of these schools. On the other hand, in Germany every town has something in the nature of a nursery school. I admit that to some extent educational organisation is different in Germany. There they do not start
their proper school life until seven, but, on the other hand, it has been proved by having these nursery centres that, when a child actually does enter school, the educational results are much more rapid and effective, and the child, already having learned the simple principles of discipline, orderly habits, and the proper use of its faculties, very quickly responds to the educational training. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity this afternoon of giving a message to those splendid people who have been the pioneers of the nursery school in England, and at the same time give a lead to local education authorities by telling them that the Board of Education will view with favour, for grant, any practical proposals put forward for the extension of nursery schools. In London sites are already available, but I am not sure that we want expensive buildings. I have seen private houses with gardens which have been adapted at very small expense, and have proved quite effective for their purpose. I would not like to see too large an expenditure, because, once it can be suggested that nursery schools are likely to prove expensive, the Treasury will discourage their extension. I come to the question of elementary schools and the Hadow Report, which is the most tremendous document issued in the last 20 years. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members opposite would stop talking. The hon. Lady is talking all the time, and is a nuisance. If she does not want to hear what I have to say, she had better leave the House.

Viscountess ASTOR: We were only trying to give a little encouragement to those who are supporting your views.

Mr. HARRIS: The Hadow Report probably more than any other document has revolutionised the attitude of educationists and the public to education. It strikes an entirely new note. The ordinary educational expert has during the last 30 or 40 years, looked with suspicion upon anything of a vocational or technical bias in the ordinary elementary schools. Now we have had a new lead, showing how, by remodelling the syllabus, education can be brought more into contact with the realities of life; but, as is pointed out in the Report and by the Minister, the possibility of introducing this new system entirely depends on the
reclassification of the school, and establishing the division of 11 years of age at the end of the elementary school life. I understand—and here I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance—that, during the last 12 months, the Board has been giving every encouragement to local authorities to remodel their educational organisation on this basis. Every new school that has been proposed has been subject to the condition that provision should be made for the division under what one might call the "Hadow basis." This is all for the good, but on the other hand, it would be a misfortune if the idea got abroad that, by merely establishing the age of 11 as the critical age in the child's life, we are doing something very substantial to alter education. If we are to make this division, it is essential that, when the change is made from elementary education to advanced education, a definite syllabus should be provided.
It has been suggested that the Board should give a lead in the matter, but I understand that the Board hesitates, do not suggest that we should have a stereotyped syllabus; nothing would be more disastrous, but some sort of lead is necessary. The difficulty of getting the necessary staff immediately comes up. The staff problem is the most difficult of all. We cannot get over the fact that there are still in elementary schools 26 per cent, of the teachers who are uncertificated. That gives the Minister a great opportunity for the training of teachers. Special provisions should be made for training a large percentage in handicraft, art, technical and practical education. The idea that the headmaster of a school must have linguistic attainments must go, and the Minister can do a great deal by advising local education authorities to make far more provision in their training colleges for the training of handicraft teachers, and by making it clear that, when it comes to promotion, at any rate in the central schools and the higher classes of the elementary schools, craft and art qualifications will be considered, and that such qualifications will be approved by the Board. Of course, a great deal of new buildings will be required. The ex-President of the Board made a lot of reference to schools on the black list which should be rebuilt or remodelled. A good many of these schools are in rural areas, and the real problem
that has to be faced, when we come to reclassification and introducing this new system of education, will be the difficulty of applying it to the rural areas, unless we are prepared to deal with the burning question of the Church schools. When there is in the rural areas only one school, and that a Church school, it will be very difficult to get the division of the school for the age of 11, and to provide for re-organisation. I do not know what the Minister is doing in that direction. At any rate, we are more likely to get a solution of this question from him, with all his influence, than probably from any other Minister.
I should like to refer to technical education. The right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from a committee which has become known as the Emmott Committee, which was started by the late Lord Emmott. They have inquired extensively into the whole problem of technical education in England, and they have shown that, in many parts of the country, there are serious and grave defects. In their Report are statistics of the provision of technical education. In the iron and steel trade and in coal mining, there is, I will not say ample provision, but a very efficient organisation. In the smaller industries, the number of classes of young children attending evening instruction is lamentably small. Take an example. We had an attempt a year or two ago to safeguard the lace industry. I find that, according to the statistics, there is only one class of instruction for young persons engaged in that industry, and only 12 young people attend it. The lace industry depends for its success, first on technical knowledge and secondly on design. If it is to compete with the successful lace industry on the continent, it is obviously important that there should be adequate provision for technical education.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The hon. Gentleman said there is only one class, but surely that is ample provision if only 12 persons attend.

Mr. HARRIS: If more opportunities were given, and more encouragement offered, more persons would be ready to attend. Experience in London shows that, where classes are started under capable supervision and are properly run, young people will be inclined to
attend. This is one of the things into which I want the Minister to inquire. Is the industry prepared to co-operate, a lid to let its young people have time off? I recently visited Germany, and found in all the industrial centres that no industry is too small and unimportant for technical instruction and technical classes. I visited three big industrial centres, Hanover, Leipzig and Nuremburg, and there every trade is catered for by technical classes in design, mechanics and handicraft, not only theoretical but practical. The manufacturers co-operate, and the Ministers of Education of the various States make it their business to see that the industries do co-operate.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Does that mean compelling the boys and girls to go to these classes?

Mr. HARRIS: Yes, there is compulsion; it is willing compulsion, Continuation schools are compulsory throughout Germany. These classes are very popular with young people, and, what is interesting, very popular with the employers, for they found that their workers became more efficient. I said to one of them that, when we started continuation schools here, the country said that they could not afford them. The answer which I got from a German industrialist was that, under the Dawes plan, they have to pay their debts to their late enemies, and the only way they could do that was to make their workers more efficient, and to train them in their craft so that they could get the most efficient and satisfactory results. If the Germans are wasting their money and not getting good results, by all means let us not embark on anything of this kind, but if we find that part of the progress during the last two or three years in many German industries is due to the large amount of time and money spent on technical education, it is time that we put our own house in order. There is no reason why this country should not have as efficient and well organised technical instruction as Germany, or any other country. I do not think that compulsion is practicable, but, in spite of what the hon. Member says, I believe that, if there were more provision for technical instruction, and more assistance from the Board—

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Germany attendance at these schools by young people is part of their apprenticeship, and that they must pass craft examinations under experts before they can be considered to be journeymen?

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The training is done during the employer's time, and no person can employ young people between 14 and 18 unless he is prepared to allow them to attend day continuation schools before seven o'clock for six or seven hours a week, according to the industry, and according to the particular State where the law is being applied. I want to be perfectly frank with the House and say that I recognise that our country is not prepared to undertake anything of a compulsory nature. We made an experiment in London with continuation schools, and public opinion turned it down. Therefore, we have to look for some substitute, and a substitute which is better than nothing can be found in our evening schools and in our technical schools, though I am afraid the Board is not encouraging them, but is rather inclined to stint them in the matter of money, damping down expenditure on a large scale. At a time when industry is largely in the melting pot, when industrial methods are changing and world competition is increasing, this country, so largely industrial, has a special responsibility to satisfy itself that its workers are technically and scientifically equipped to compete with the workers in other countries. I think this matter is something which is worthy of the attention of the Board.
I have one other word to say on a subject which is akin to this, and that is adult education. It is a very remarkable thing that many young men and women who have left school at 14 realise when they reach the age of 18 the disadvantage of not having attended any form of continuation school during those four intervening years, and all over the country there is a great demand for adult schools in different forms. Various experiments have been made, and in London they have met with great success. The right hon. Gentleman is to visit one of these schools in London next autumn in order to open an extension of the building. I would say to him; "Do not try
to make the syllabus too stereotyped; give it as much elasticity as possible, and give every encouragement in the way of grants to this very important form of education."
It is difficult for a working man to go back to school. The ordinary syllabus is a long one. In talking to men, I have often found that the idea of going back to school, and starting to learn again, is not very attractive, and what we must do is to adapt the provisions made to the needs of the case. Let us make the syllabus as broad as possible, and let us not be too particular about the size of the classes; because if we get these young men and women back into an educational atmosphere we shall have done a great deal for their character and towards making them good citizens. We hear much at the present time of the growth of Communism in the country. Assuming for a moment that Karl Marx and his doctrines are wrong, what chance has a boy leaving school at 14 of judging of the merits of these new theories and ideas with which he is brought into contact? If young men and young women are willing to go back into the educational atmosphere at 18, it is the business of the Board of Education to encourage that movement, to stimulate it, and not to do anything, by regulations regarding the size of classes, to make the task of local authorities difficult; rather, it should be made easier for them to start adult classes.

Mr. W. FOOT MITCHELL: In spite of the resentment which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has shown with regard to the County of Essex putting forward the objection which has been so ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker), I rise to say a few words in support of the contention of Essex. The figures given by my hon. Friend were of such a convincing nature that it is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to refer to them. I think it has been clearly proved that Essex is suffering materially as a consequence of the very large migration of population which it has received. Essex is a very important county, and one of the largest counties in England, but, unfortunately, it is not one of the wealthiest, and it is suffering from very serious agricultural depression Any
further burdens will press upon it with particular severity, and I want the President of the Board of Education seriously to consider whether something cannot be done to lighten its burdens. It has been explained this afternoon that the increase in the matter of rates will amount to something like 9½d. in the £. So far as I am aware, Essex was not consulted about the introduction of the very large number of families who have settled in the district of Becontree. It reminds me of how the Children of Israel came into the Promised Land and found it a land flowing with milk and honey. The people who are flowing to Becontree to-day are getting the milk and honey of education, and the residents of Essex, who have to pay, are naturally protesting, and I wish to voice their protest in this House. Just as I came into the House this afternoon I received a copy of a resolution passed by the Borough of Saffron. Walden, as follows:
This Council views with considerable concern the very heavy, increasing and exceptional expenditure thrown upon the County of Essex by the creation of a large township within its borders by the London County Council, and asks the Essex County Council to continue their efforts to secure some contribution towards these expenses.
It is with that object that I am asking the President of the Board of Education to give this subject serious consideration and to do all that is possible to remove the hardship from which the county is suffering, through no fault of its own. I hope the Minister may be able later to tell us that he has the matter under consideration and that there is some hope of early relief.

Mr. SEXTON: My name appears on the Order Paper in support of a reduction of the Vote, but for reasons which are entirely distinct from those which have already been advanced by other speakers; and I would explain, further, that it is in no carping spirit, nor with any wish actually to reduce the Vote, that I support the Amendment. The subject I am raising concerns the pensions of teachers, and I wish to call attention to the inequalities suffered by a certain section of teachers under the control of the Board of Education. The section to which I refer are commonly known as supplementary teachers. I have no doubt that that title would apply to a majority of the so-called supplementary teachers, and I am not concerned very much with
those. The class with whom I am concerned cannot, to my mind, rightly be described as supplementaries, because some of them have given 20, 30 or 40 years' service to the State; they have been given certificates of competency by the Board as being fit and proper persons to act as teachers, and those certificates have been confirmed every year. I understand there are 9,000 of them. I am prepared to admit that at least 50 per cent, of them have no proper and reasonable claim, and for those I am not making any very strong appeal, but I do specially plead for the others. I am not so much concerned about those who were appointed during the War or since the War, but I am very much concerned at the continued recruiting of such teachers. In view of the large number of other teachers available, I think it is time the education authorities made up their minds once and for all to stop recruiting what are really and truly described as supplementary teachers, because in my opinion it is entirely unnecessary and unwarranted.
I should say that, on the whole, the people for whom I am appealing do not cover more than 2,000 out of the total. They are people who in spite of their long service to the State have been shut out from all recognition. Legislation has been passed from time to time, and Burnham scales and all the rest of it set up, but they have never had a voice in these matters, simply because they were included in what is known as the supplementary class. Nobody will have them. They have applied to be admitted to the National Union of Teachers. A deputation waited on the National Union of Teachers, but the Union will not admit them to membership. Deputations of them, accompanied by myself, have more than once been received by the President of the Board of Education, and J have to admit that it was made evident to us that there are great difficulties in the way of acceding to their request, but I do not think those difficulties are insurmountable, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman and others responsible with him will reconsider the situation. In order to secure some standing for themselves they formed a separate association, under the title of Uncertificated Teachers. And yet, strange to say, those uncertificated teachers who had reached
the matriculation stage, and had not received their certificate were accepted by the Board of Education and the National Union of Teachers, and they have become members. I have in my possession a report from one of the inspectors, speaking in eulogistic terms of the general conduct and intelligence of these supplementary teachers.
What are the arguments against them? The first is that they are not certificated, and they have not received the certificate of a college education. They are cheap, and they are taken advantage of for that particular reason by the managers of schools, arid the education authorities are also accused of having exploited them in that direction. Whether the President of the Board of Education will be able to absolve himself from that charge I do not know; that rests entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. That fact alone has prejudiced the case of these people. It has been said that young women simply take on this job for pocket money, but I strongly repudiate that statement.
It has been stated that by admitting these teachers to membership of the pensions scheme and to the National Union of Teachers—an institution for which I have the greatest respect and regard—that would raise them to the status of civil servants. Why not? If they are capable of passing the examination of His Majesty's inspectors, why should they not be treated like anybody else? They have the imprimatur of the Government inspector, to the effect that they are perfectly capable people. What these people want is an opportunity and a proper avenue of employment so that they can raise themselves to the existing status of the National Union of Teachers. At present that union will not have them and they are treated as outcasts, Let me point out the inconsistency of adopting this course. Even in the National Union of Teachers there is a very wide distinction in the payment of salaries according to sex. The men teachers get considerably more than the women teachers, and the National Union of Teachers have agreed to that.

Viscountess ASTOR: Shame!

Mr. SEXTON: In a matter of this kind I would like the National Union of Teachers to be consistent.

Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that the salaries agreed to by the National Onion of Teachers were the salaries laid down by an independent arbiter, Lord Burnham?

Mr. SEXTON: I was reminded of that by the President of the Board of Education when I went before him with a deputation and his reply to me was, "What can we do? If we include them they will have to accept the Burnham scale." Of course they could not prevent that, but why lay down such a condition and then quote cheapness as an argument against these teachers, when the members of the National Union of Teachers themselves have drawn a distinction in the matter of salaries between men and women? The teachers employed under Poor Law authorities are not, in the truest sense of the word, teachers, in fact they are more nurses than teachers. They have not got a university certificate, and all they have to do is to prove to the satisfaction of the President of the Board of Education that they have had five years service under the Poor Law and then they are included in the pensions scheme. Why have this distinction? It is argued that during their period of 20, 30 or 40 years service, surely they have had an ample opportunity of qualifying as certified teachers.
Let us examine the question a little more closely. The persons I am appealing for are the children of the ordinary working classes. Some of them are prepared to struggle on as teachers, and they are making every effort to take the fullest advantage of our educational system. I know a case where one of these teachers won a local scholarship worth £40 a year, and, of course, that had to be supplemented by further assistance in order to carry that scholarship to its logical conclusion, but sheer poverty was an obstacle. Some of these people who have been called supplementary teachers have won scholarships, and their poverty has prevented them following up their success. I know of cases in my own constituency of the daughters of working-class parents, some of them the daughters of widowers and others the daughters of invalid mothers, who in addition to earning money to assist the narrow family budget, have to take over the domestic cares of the household, and
at the same time follow their vocation. What opportunity have they got to secure the benefit of our educational system?
Let me give a typical case of what occurred in my own domestic experience. My mind travels back to the time when as a lad I was dragged from the school at the age of 10 in order to work for a wage of 2s. 6d. per week on a 12 hours shift in the constituency which I have now the honour to represent in this House. I was one of a family of six. My father, owing to an accident in the early days of his marriage, was advised by the doctor to give up physical labour and in order to get a living he adopted the profession of a packman and he went round to country fairs. My mother—God bless her!—was a lady in every sense of the word; in fact, one of nature's ladies. My father died before he reached middle age, and my poor old mother took over the burden of the household. She took over the business of my father and travelled around the country with a pack on her back. I had a younger brother who was delicate in health, and my mother's ambition was to make him the gentleman of the family; and by making very great sacrifices she kept him at. school in order that he might take full advantage of our educational system. This went on for years. After a great struggle, my brother became a schoolmaster, and when he died he was the headmaster of a school in Liverpool.
I had a sister who possessed the same ambition as my younger brother. She was a woman of ability and considerable intelligence and she wished to take advantage of our educational system; she also had to forgo her opportunity and her ambition and take her mother's domestic duties in the home in order to meet the cost of her brother's education. To achieve this end further sacrifices had to be made, and I myself had to brave the terrors of the Western Ocean in consequence and deny myself many necessities. My case is typical of hundreds and thousands of cases that exist to-day. In the plea I am putting forward to-day I am not asking for anything very extraordinary. I am simply pleading for these unfortunate women teachers who are respectable members of the ordinary working-class, who have
done 20, 30 and in some cases 40 years' service and who at the end of that time have been denied the opportunity of subscribing to a pension scheme. I appeal, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman, and I also appeal strongly to the National Union of Teachers, whose slogan is, "Educate, educate, educate," and whose aim is to elevate, evolve and improve the intelligence of the people—their platform slogan for the abolition of poverty. In this respect they are attempting God's work. Let them carry this out to its logical conclusion in God's own way:
Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is well that the Committee should have heard a speech like that of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). We have all realised his great qualities, and now we know why he is such a gentleman. His mother was a lady. I am glad that he has told the Committee the story of his struggle for education. One thing that moves me greatly is the thought that there are so many hundreds of children who really are fit to take education and cannot get it, and also that there are so many children who can get education and will not take it. I do not know which is the more tragic. Some of us feel so strongly about education that we dare to criticise our own party, and I must say that we on this side are much quicker to criticise our party than are hon. Members opposite. We can do it with freedom and stay in the party, and, therefore, we who believe in freedom are very glad to hear the hon. Member for St. Helens daring to attack any part of his party, and even the National Union of Teachers. I want to congratulate the President of the Board of Education, because I like to congratulate any Minister when I can, and, above all, I like to congratulate my party when I can, but I have never said, "My party right or wrong," and I would not say, "My country right or wrong." That is a blind, stupid point of view, and that is why I deplore the attitude of people who have that narrow point of view, and stand up for their party whether it be right or whether it be wrong, instead of trying to fight what is wrong in their party and to help it to go on the right way. That is not a very popular attitude,
I know, and I would not advise anyone desiring to better their position to follow me.
I have no desire to better my position, but, as the Committee knows, I am ardent where children are concerned, and this question of education affects children so much that I hope the President of the Board of Education will forgive me if I criticise him, but before doing so I want to congratulate him. No one in the Committee has congratulated him over the Budget, though perhaps it has been noticed that he has succeeded in getting the percentage grant system for education, although there was a time when we were all terrified about the block grant. I realise that in getting the percentage grant system he has won his fight against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I congratulate him also on the increase in the number of new school buildings, although we must deplore the fact that there are still 544 schools in England and Wales which have been condemned by the Board of Education as unfit for use. These 544 condemned schools provide accommodation for 140,000 children, who are thus compelled to spend several hours of every day in surroundings which are likely to damage their health and are certain to hamper instruction. That is a very serious matter, and, although I congratulate the President on the increase in the number of new schools, I implore him not to stop fighting wherever it is necessary to fight, and not to leave too much to the local authorities.
I must also congratulate him on the decrease in the size of the classes for children over 11; but, on the other hand, I understand that there has been an increase in the size of the classes for children under 11, and I think the statement in the report, regarding this matter is rather feeble. The report says:
Further classes ought not to be made of uniform size without regard to the age and attainments of the pupils.
I would ask the Committee how on earth can anyone teach children when there are more than 25 in a class? Think of the money that we are wasting on these large classes. Personally, rather than give a woman a class of 60 children to each in a room, I would let her take them out and play games with them. It is almost impossible to teach such large classes of children, and I do hope that
the Board will continue to press this matter, and will not deal with it in the, as t think, rather feeble manner that they have. I also regret very much that the grants for universities and colleges in Great Britain and for intermediate education in Wales have been cut down by £200,000 this year. That seems to me to be a bad point, because we know that it is very desirable to get teachers with a university training. Perhaps my information in regard to this is wrong, though I got it on the very best authority, and, at any rate, I hope the Minister will give some explanation on this matter.
With regard to the Hadow Report, it may be thought to be going back, but we must adhere to the first part, and consider very seriously the question of raising the school-leaving age. It is 18 months since the Hadow Report was made, and when it was issued it was looked upon all over the country as one of the greatest reports that had ever been made on the subject of education. The President of the Board of Education, however, issued with it a letter in which he said he could not then raise the school-leaving age because to do so would gravely disturb the balance of some of the most comprehensive of the local education authorities' programmes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Minister has no power except by legislation to raise the school age.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Hadow Report has already been referred to by one or two other speakers. Perhaps I might ask the President if he could bring the matter before the House, and leave it to the House, if he has no power himself.

Mr. COVE: With a view to the development of the Debate, may I ask whether it is not possible for the Minister by administrative action to encourage the raising of the school-leaving age? Is not the Noble Lady pointing to the fact that, instead of encouraging it by administrative action, he has discouraged the raising of the school-leaving age, and is it not, therefore, within the purview of this Debate to discuss such a matter in relation to administrative action by the Minister?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that it is not within the authority
of the Minister, and the Minister could not be asked to reply on that question, because it would need legislation to give him the power.

Viscountess ASTOR: The letter sent out by the President to local authorities said that the Government did not propose to raise the school-leaving age, as it would dislocate the programmes of the local authorities. He is always sending out communications to the local authorities, and, therefore, it seemed to me that I might ask him a question on this matter. The local authorities themselves have said that they could do it, not in five years, but in six years, and I wanted to ask him to reconsider the matter, and, instead of telling the local authorities that its was not possible, to give them a lead, and say that it would be possible with their consent within six years. Everyone who knows anything about education realises that the school-leaving age will have to be raised sooner or later, and what we want to do is to get it in train, and bring about the necessary reorganisation referred to in the Hadow Report. Simply to say that the school-leaving age is going to be raised in six years' time would in itself do nothing; what is required is the reorganisation of the whole system under the Hadow Report, and what we are hoping is that the President of the Board of Education, having already won one battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will also win this battle. I do not know who is against him in this matter, but I am certain that it is not Parliament or the country at large, though it may be the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is becoming very progressive, and I hope that the President of the Board of Education will do what he can.
Another matter that I want to urge is that of nursery schools. The Minister of Health yesterday made the House almost shudder when he talked about rheumatism and all the different diseases that one could catch. I do not want to deal with the diseases that one can catch, but to bring before the Committee the condition of children in crowded areas who go to elementary schools. The average proportion of children entering nursery schools at two years of age who are rickety is from 80 to 90 per cent.,
and within one year all cases of rickets are cured in open air nursery schools. The average proportion of diseased and delicate children entering elementary schools at the age of five is from 30 to 40 per cent., while the average proportion of children who have attended a nursery school between the ages of two and five is only 7 per cent. If the Government would press on with these nursery schools in crowded areas, rickets could be practically entirely eliminated. The birth rate is going down, and thank goodness for it. I do not believe in large rickety families; I would rather see small healthy families than large rickety ones. I am perfectly certain that no Member of the House who visited the Margaret Macmillan nursery school, and saw what it is possible to do in crowded slum areas, would think any expense too great to save the children in those areas from these diseases, which otherwise are bound to continue.
6.0 p.m.
We who have the advantage of looking after our children cannot visualise what it is in crowded areas for a mother with four or five young children. Where are children between two and three going to play? There is only the street. If you can get these young children into nursery schools, you can guarantee to eliminate rickets. I do not think it is so much a question for the Minister of Education, but he can settle it with the Minister of Health. The Government should not suggest it to local authorities, but should press it on them and make it compulsory in crowded areas. The Board is apt to leave things which are a great necessity to the initiative of the local authorities. We should never have reduced infant mortality if we had left it to them. There had to be a central authority pressing on the local authority. If people realised what Sir Robert Morant has done in the way of progressive reforms they would see that you cannot leave these things to local authorities alone. In the matter of maternity mortality, it is the central authority that is going to take a step forward. They cannot leave it to the local authorities.
I beg every hon. Member to look into the question of nursery schools. We have to preserve our children, and there is
only one way that we who are living in better conditions can help the children in slum areas, and that is by providing them with nursery schools. It is no good saying that you are going to get rid of slum areas, and that it is impossible to reduce the responsibility of the mothers. It is absurd to talk about the responsibility of the mother with four or five children in one room in a slum area. Go and see for yourselves. It would not only improve their health, but one of the problems of the slum is the slum mind, and in these nursery schools you get hold of the children and teach them to live together, like our children are taught, how to get on together in peace, and how to play together. One of the teachers told me that the worst children with whom they have to deal are those who come out of the very crowded areas. It takes three or four months to get them to act normally. They grab and fight, as people do when they are too near together. Every married woman knows that. Human nature cannot stand overcrowding. When these children who come from the worst homes are sent to nursery schools they become quite natural and normal. I beg the Minister not to leave it to local authorities, but to put it at the head of his programme along with the other progressive things which the Unionist party are now going for. Do not say that it is permissive. Let us say that it must be done.
Hon. Members opposite have talked about our national schools and wished we had national schools to which all classes would go as they do in Australia, Canada, and America. In many ways that is a splendid thing. The worst about this country is that when a man, no matter of what class, gets a little money he wants his children to go to a little better school. It is not always that he wants a better education. It is snobbery. I regret this class-consciousness, but I do not think it is confined to one class. It goes from top to bottom, and it is an ugly thing wherever it is found. I look forward to the time when our national schools will have smaller classes and better buildings, when there will be no class consciousness and our children will all go to school together. But I should never send my child to a school where they had classes of 60. I beg the Minister not to make excuses for the past. We realise that he has had to do
things of which he did not approve, and things he did not want to do, but it was on account of finance. Let him go ahead with his progressive policy, but remember, in our fight against ignorance, a great deal of our trouble is because of the teaching of Communism, and Communism came from a country where 90 per cent. of the people could not read or write. I believe in democracy and in education. If the Minister wants education he has got to fight for it. There are very few people who really believe in education. You will only find so many Members over there, and so many over here, who really see the possibilities of education. You need not tell me you put it in your trade union programme. It is always at the bottom of the programme, and you never get to it. Having a thing in a programme is quite different from having it in your heart. This is in the heart of every mother, whether she be rich or poor, and we beg the Minister to go ahead and convert the House, as he has converted the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. BATEY: It is interesting to hear the Noble Lady declare herself as a birth controller. That is one of the ways or keeping down expenditure on education. I want the Minister to make a statement regarding his visit to the mining areas. I asked him last week whether he would be prepared to issue a report as to the object of his visit and the conclusions he had arrived at. He did not feel that it would be wise to issue a report, and I want him to make a statement now. Either by him or by the Prime Minister, we were led to believe that he was going to make inquiries into the condition of the miners' wives and children. Since he was in Durham, one has been talking with some of the people whom he met, and I know he not only visited schools but had various conversations. We have been led to believe again and again that something was going to be done for the miners' children, and in this case the wives also. Are we going to be disappointed again? The Noble Lord cannot feel justified in regarding his visit as something that is secret. He ought really to be glad of the chance of explaining what, is going to be the result. Did he inquire into the feeding of the children, whether they were properly fed or if there were some need for some out-
side agency to come in and help? Did he make inquiries as to whether they were properly clothed, and whether there was any need for some outside agency to help in clothing them? During the whole of the dispute in 1926 the county education committee fed the children. Does the Noble Lord consider there is, a need for the education committee to recommence feeding them? When I saw that the right hon. Gentleman was going to the mining areas, I offered to make a bet with a friend that it would all end in smoke, and that we should get nothing from it. I am wondering whether I was justified or not.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. Two years ago the Minister took away a schoolmaster's certificate. I imagine he would not be in Durham without discussing this with some of the people he met. Did he do so, and has he come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when he should restore that certificate? I met the schoolmaster only a week ago, and he is still out of employment, after two years, for caning two children. I ask the Minister, very quietly but very sincerely, whether he does not think the punishment has been sufficiently great—as a matter of fact, too great?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I ought perhaps to apologise to the Committee for not having made a statement on the Estimates at the beginning of the Debate, but I wished to defer my speech in case anyone wished to ask me that kind of personal question which the hon. Member has just asked. I can make no statement on the last subject he has mentioned.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the Noble Lord mean that the matter is finished with entirely?

Lord E. PERCY: I said I could make no statement upon it.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the Noble Lord receive a deputation of Durham Members on the matter of the dismissal of the head teacher, Mr. Towers?

Lord E. PERCY: I wish to deal with the question of the children in the distressed areas.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Noble Lord tell the Committee how often he has been down a mine?

Lord E. PERCY: When we had a Debate on this subject a little while ago, I expressed the view that the provision of boots and clothing for the children had better he taken up by a private and non-official body. That has, as hon. Members know, been done. I then said that as regards the feeding of children I thought that what was needed was feeding on a medical certificate, strictly a selecting the children according to their state of malnutrition rather than taking children merely because they belong to a necessitous family. I expressed the hope that if that were done the deductions by the guardians from the relief received by parents for those children would not be continued in those cases. With regard to South Wales, I am now able to tell the Committee that the Rhondda, and Glamorganshire, in certain parts of the area, are now giving milk meals in the middle of the day to children on medical certificates, and both the Bedwellty and the Pontypridd Guardians have agreed that on that basis they will make no deductions from the parents' relief. That, I think, was the thing which mainly needed to be done in South Wales in the matter of feeding the children. Perhaps I ought to add that we have told the medical officers of health of the various local authorities in South Wales that we think that that is the way in which the local authorities should proceed if they wish to feed children and deal with cases of malnutrition.

Mr. COVE: Is that the only means? Is it only one meal a day?

Lord E. PERCY: The meal which is now being given in Rhondda and Glamorganshire is a milk meal in the middle of the day.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Only on school days?

Lord E. PERCY: I really cannot answer that question at this moment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: This is the most important thing you are going to discuss.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, nonsense. Let us get on with the business. {Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I must point out that the Noble Lord and other hon. Members can speak twice, and, if hon. Members are not satisfied with what the Noble Lord says, they can press the matter, and they can speak again.

Mr. MORRISON: There was no desire to arrest the right hon. Gentleman, but he started to explain and we only asked whether milk meals are being given on five days a week or on seven days?

Lord E. PERCY: That, I am afraid, I really cannot answer at this moment. I do not know whether they are feeding the children simply on five days, or on six or on seven days. I think it is only on five days. As regards Durham, I not only visited the Durham area the other day, but some medical inspectors of mine went up there and inspected many schools. I am considering the results of that investigation now. Broadly speaking, what applies to South Wales applies to Durham, namely, that that system of milk meals, on a medical certificate is probably the best way of dealing with cases of malnutrition and is a better way than merely giving dinner in the middle of the day at a canteen to all children whose parents are necessitous. I think that it ought to be kept strictly on a medical basis, for it is medical malnutrition which is really the chief danger to the children in these areas. That is roughly the situation at the present moment, and I shall be very glad to tell the Committee more as soon as I have formed a definite conclusion as to whether anything further than that is needed in Durham.

Mr. HARRIS: Does that really mean that a child cannot get food until a medical certificate is given?

Lord E. PERCY: It means that I am describing what is practically the system in London.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does not this mean that the children go to school and have to remain there until midday without any food at all?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Gentleman is apparently assuming that a large proportion of these children go to school without breakfast. That, as far as South Wales is concerned, I think, is rare at
the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have been down there and my representatives have been down there, and I think it is rare. It may not be rare in Durham, and that is precisely one of the questions I shall have to consider.

Mr. BATEY: Has the Noble Lord inquired not only into the condition of the children but into the condition of the miners' wives? Is he going to take any steps with regard to them?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I cannot within the rules of order deal with that question to-day. That really does not come within my official responsibility. To pass to the general question of these Estimates, the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) opened what he said was to be a kind of general attack upon the record of the Government. He opened with one or two, what he admitted to be, trivial instances, but which, he said, were instances which were happening all over the country. He then only dealt with big questions of educational policy in a very broad and vague way. He made a few vague and general statements. The only thing I can say about those statements is that all of them are quite demonstrably inaccurate, as he stated them. We were told that, of course, I had not got up to speak because I had nothing much to say, as last year was a very quiet year. That was not a very gracious thing to say when the right hon. Gentleman knew quite well the reason why I did not get up. He said that last year had been such a year of inaction.
I think he knows quite well that in regard to the matters of which he was particularly speaking, the subject of buildings, the large classes and so on, that last year was the biggest building year there had been since the War. Moreover, the amount of capital expenditure approved by the Board is a very great deal above any previous year either before the War or since. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like the figures. Last year the figure was £6,474,000 against £4,488,000 in 1924–25. If he looks at the figures he knows perfectly well that there is no slackening at all, but that there has been a steady progress in building. Next he says that I am the bright boy of the Treasury
because my Estimates have been reduced! He knows quite well that they have not been reduced, and that last year I spent, for good or for ill, £870,000 more than he spent in 1924–25. This year my Estimates are higher than last year on a comparable basis, and the apparent reduction is entirely due to adjustments in regard to contributions in respect of teachers' pensions and so on. One more general statement which he made which bears no—[Interruption].

Mr. COVE rose—

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member must really allow me to continue. I have given way on several occasions.

Mr. COVE: On a point of Order. The Noble Lord did not explain his Estimates at the outset. Now he is making certain statements with regard to the Estimates which absolutely puzzle and bewilder me, and he says that there is no decrease. I merely ask him how he makes that out. Will he kindly, for the convenience of the Committee, enter into a litle more detail to show that these Estimates have increased rather than decreased? After all, I require enlightenment, and I am sure the Committee do.

Lord E. PERCY: I will come to that in a moment. I have assumed that the hon. Member had done me the honour of reading the memorandum on the Estimates.

Mr. COVE: I cannot understand the figures.

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand them in print, he may not be able to understand them when he hears them from me. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle, with another of his sweeping statements, said there were only, I think, 42 more teachers in 1927 than there were in 1925. That was a reference to a particular page in the Report. I admit that that page might lead to a misapprehension, but actually there are about 2,480 more teachers, and not 42 as was stated. I think that the general condemnation of the Government's policy perhaps rather falls to the ground, when it is stated in those exaggerated and quite baseless terms. I think I shall be able to show to the Committee, and to my
Noble Friend the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), who takes such an interest in this question, and to others, that so far from the Government being weak or slack or deficient in energy or in devotion to the national policy of education, the reverse is actually the case. In previous years I have regretted that the Education Estimates were discussed late in the Session, but to-day I am inclined to regret that we have them so early.
There are, after all, only two questions in educational policy which really matter at this moment—better education for the older children in the elementary schools and better opportunities for the further education of those children after they leave. In other words, the re-organisation and development of the elementary schools and the fuller use of our technical schools are the real subjects that matter at the present moment. Taken together, as they should be, they represent a profound change in the whole structure and conception of our national system of education. I am preparing reports on both of these subjects which, I hope, will be issued very shortly, setting forth more clearly than I can expect to do in a speech, the lines upon which I believe that national policy should proceed in the future. I will try to do my best to deal with those subjects this afternoon, but I should have been better able to do so had I been able to refer to those forthcoming reports on the re-organisation of elementary schools and on technical education.
Perhaps I can best introduce this subject to the Committee by asking them to consider what progress has been made during the past three years with regard to the policy which I outlined to the Committee when I presented my first Estimates in 1925. I assume, in spite of what the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Cove) has said, that hon. Members have seen and have before them the memorandum on the Board's Estimates, and the Report of the Board of Education which this year is issued in a new form, including the statistics which in previous years have only been published in September. I think the Report itself is shorter; at any rate, it only contains about 90 pages as against 140 pages in previous years, and is in a more
readable form. The information in it is fresher because it carries down the story of our administration to the end of the preceding calendar year. I hope that that Report will appeal to a wider public than before and will be for the better information of the public generally concerning the history and the state of our education.
I come to consider what has happened during the last few- years. Let me dismiss in a few words, because I have dealt with it so often at length, what I may call the housemaid's work of education, the clearing up, the sweeping away of material defects in our elementary schools. It was to this subject that the right hon. Member for Newcastle, Central, devoted most attention in his speech. Three years ago, bad school premises and large classes were generally regarded, even by educational reformers as, perhaps, theoretically undesirable but as a necessary evil. Anyone who has had experience of educational administration will agree with that statement. We have now, for the first time, made these material defects the subject of an accurate survey and continual scrutiny, and I cannot agree that the progress made has not been great, considering that we are at the end only of the first year of the programmes of the local authorities, and that it is hardly more than two years since the local authorities and the voluntary bodies had a real opportunity of considering not merely the black list as a whole but the actual reports and criticisms of the inspectors in regard to the individual schools with which they were required to deal. Considering that little more than two years have elapsed, I think the progress made has been very great.
Some 37 per cent. of the schools on List A have either been removed from the black list or plans for remedying or replacing them have been definitely aproved by the Board. Taking all the compartments of the black list, as the report shows, actually 700 schools have either been removed or plans have been definitely approved for remedying them within two or two and a half years. I cannot agree that that is slow progress. This is a thing which has been neglected for at least; a quarter of a century. It was neglected, I may remind the right hon. Member for Newcastle, Central, who
criticised me so violently, during the time that he was at the Board of Education, in less happy circumstances, before the War. We cannot expect to make up the ground that we have lost, in three years or in five years. Now, for the first time, the question of large classes and the question of the black-listed schools are accepted by everyone, by the local authorities, by the Church of England, by the Roman Catholic Church in regard to their schools not merely as a theoretical end to aim at but as a definitely practical and feasible policy, and they are working towards it. Apart from the very real progress we have made during the past three years, the general acceptance of that principle as a definitely practical and feasible thing is a great and, indeed, a surprising advance, compared with the situation three years ago.
I am told that the reduction of large classes is hanging in the wind; that I have not proceeded fast enough with it. Even in spite of the very slight setback that we experienced last year, we still have 19 per cent. fewer classes of over 50 to-day than we had in March, 1924. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not think very much of the reasons for the setback which are given in the Report. If he had listened carefully to the speeches of the two hon. Members who spoke for the County of Essex, if he had knowledge of a housing estate like that at Becontree, or any of the other large housing estates throughout the country, he would realise some of the appalling difficulties which local authorities have to face. I have figures, for instance, relating to one school on a housing estate where the number of children of six years of age is four times the number of children of the age of 13. Consider the difficulty of reducing the size of classes, when you have to build schools for an abnormal age distribution of children of that kind! It is there where the number of large classes have gone up. It is the particular local authorities who have to deal with these new housing estates who have experienced a setback in the reduction of large classes. I have carefully gone into the conditions in every area where the conditions cause anxiety in regard to the setback, and I believe that the figures of last March will show a very substantial improvement.
As additional class-room space is provided we are increasing the establishments of teachers in each area where the additional space is provided. For example, next year, 1928–29, the approved establishments of teachers will be, I hope, 1,500 more than they were, or that the local authorities could use, in 1927–28. Housemaid's work, important though it may be, does not in itself make a home; as many a husband in the midst of spring cleaning knows, it may make a home very uncomfortable. The mere replacement in situ of the old school buildings or the mere addition to them of extra class rooms, or the rushing up of children from the junior forms into the senior forms, prematurely, simply because the junior forms are crowded and senior forms empty, may provide a remedy a great deal worse than the disease, and schools rebuilt where they ought riot to be rebuilt may become a positive bar to progress.
This brings me to the great constructive reform which has taken shape during the past three years. Almost immediately after I came into office I issued Circular 1350, advising and urging local authorities to establish the principle of a break at 11 years of age; that is, that the old undifferentiated elementary school, stretching and straggling vaguely from five years to 14 years, must go, and must be replaced by a primary school for children up to the age of 11, and by secondary and senior schools of various types for children of the age of 11 onwards. That policy has been reinforced and expounded with great force and cogency by the Hadow Committee. Three years ago that policy was, in part, unfamiliar to the country and, in part, definitely distasteful to certain sections of opinion, and to certain sections of opinion inside this House. Nothing has been more remarkable in the last three years, as showing the advance we have made, than the fact that now that policy, that principle, is accepted practically by every section of opinion in every area, and by none more warmly and more whole-heartedly than the National Society which speaks for the Church of England schools. The general acceptance of that new principle has enabled me to prepare the Report on the reorganisation of elementary schools and the provision of general secondary and senior education, and I am accompanying that Report
with a Circular dealing with a point which has caused a good deal of difficulty and difference in the past, namely, at what definite programme of work local authorities should aim in carrying out the principle.
The Hadow Committee felt very strongly the necessity of setting a definite goal before the local authorities and of setting them a definite time-table. They suggested that the goal and timetable at which the local authorities should aim should be to provide by the year 1932 accommodation for all the children who would be in their schools in 1932, if the school age were raised from 14 to 15. I cannot discuss that particular recommendation now, within the rules of Order, but I think it has now been generally agreed that whether the school age were raised or not local authorities could not provide by 1932 or 1933 accommodation for all children between 11 years and 15 years, because about that time there will be an entirely temporary transitory "bulge" in the senior school population, for which it would be impossible to provide at that date. I am, therefore, in my Circular, suggesting that the definite programme at which local authorities should aim is the provision f accommodation by 1933 for all children who will be in attendance at the senior schools on the basis of the present law, and that all such schools should be so planned as to be able to provide, as and when required, a full four years' course. That, I think, is the best basis for a definite programme of work.
I do not think that we should have been able to launch a programme of this kind, for it is an enormous programme, had it not been for another innovation of the last three years, the introduction of the programme system, by which we have applied the method of accurate survey to all the problems of educational administration. We have now definite programmes and definite estimates in advance, and with the experience gained in this first programme period of 1927–30, I hope that the next programme period for 1930–33 will gain a great deal in definiteness, and will be concentrated more clearly and in a more businesslike way on this one great central reform at which we are aiming. This great central reform does not depend
upon mere administrative plans or mere bricks and mortar. It depends also upon the training of the teachers who are to develop and carry on the new form of senior education. This senior education is not to be only elementary education, advanced; it will be something better.
Our system of training teachers for elementary schools has been amazingly successful in the technique of teaching children; but there has been a growing desire for a very long time past amongst the students of our training colleges for wider opportunities for study, and that desire has shown itself in the development of closer relations between the training colleges and universities in many parts of the country. The result of the work of the last two or three years is that we have established this closer relationship between universities and training colleges on a really permanent basis. We held a conference two years ago representing the universities, local authorities, governing bodies of training colleges and the teaching profession, and went into the whole question of bringing the training colleges into closer relations with the universities, and, as a result of that conference, local negotiations have been going on throughout the country.
It has been a very big and difficult task, but, thanks to the keenness and cooperation of all parties concerned, I am able to announce to-night that arrangements have been completed in ten out of the eleven grouped areas into which the country was divided, whereby in each of these areas the training colleges will be grouped with certain universities in the area and a joint board will be formed which will take over the responsibility for conducting examinations for the teaching certificate. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to take this opportunity of expressing my special thanks to Mr. Mayor, formerly Principal Assistant Secretary to the Board of Education, for his invaluable work as Chairman of the Central Committee of the Conference during the negotiations. That scheme is not to be regarded as merely setting up a new form of examination. It is the creation of a common body, with a community of interest between the universities and the training colleges, by which both the universities and training colleges may consider what are the proper courses of study both for
university degrees and for the training colleges in connection with the training of teachers. That is a subject which needs a great deal of hard thought. The universities themselves do not by any means accept the present degree courses as the best that can be evolved for intending teachers, and I hope that out of this new matrix, as it were, we shall get a very much improved and greatly strengthened system of training teachers.
Given the administrative planning, and the teaching power necessary to the realisation of our great central reform, what kind of schools are we going to establish? First, there are the secondary schools of the existing type. I will not pause over these because there is not too much time, and I have not been specially asked about the development of our secondary school system. I would remind the Committee that during the last three years we have been putting in hand entirely new secondary school places at the rate of about 8,000 per year. We have taken again an accurate survey of the need for new accommodation for existing schools. In 1923, about 75,000 secondary school pupils were being taught in schools which required either wholly or in part new or extended premises, and we have been able to put in hand the replacement or extension of one-third or possibly one-half of these premises. In view of the burden of replacement, I think it is satisfactory that we should have increased in the last three years the secondary school population by 25,000 and the number of free places—and this is a much later figure than the one already given-4y no less than 21,000.
The criticism is sometimes heard that even with this great growth in school population, the admissions to secondary schools are lower than they were in 1919–20. That is quite true, they are; but apart from the special reasons for an abnormal influx of secondary school population into secondary schools in 1919, it must be remembered that at that time—this is important when you consider the character of the new schools which are to take the children from the age of 11—the secondary schools were not doing the work for which they were specially designed. They were designed for the purpose of carrying children up to the age of 16, but in 1921 the average
length of school life after the age of 12 years in secondary schools was hardly more than three years. Since then we have increased the average length of school life in secondary schools by about seven months, and of course you cannot use the same places twice over for new pupils and for old pupils staying longer. When that criticism is made it must be remembered that in 1920 the number of admissions to secondary schools represented about 14 per cent. of the elementary school population of appropriate age; last year it represented 15 per cent., so that although our total number of admissions may not be as high as in 1920, we are yet giving an opportunity to a larger proportion of the elementary school children than we did in 1919.
Next to the existing secondary schools, we shall have a number of other selective schools of the type now known as "central," which will select children from a large number of primary schools, and it is on these central schools that the chief responsibility will fall for working out the courses of study appropriate to the new type of school. These central schools are not the humble camp followers of the existing secondary school army. They are the head of a new advance, the forerunners of a new adventure, the purpose of which is to provide better education for children in the elementary schools who are going on not to a secondary school or other selective school, but into non-selective senior schools as a part of their ordinary school life. This policy of the break at the age of 11 is for all children, not for the few bright and intelligent children. These central schools will have to work out courses suitable to the new form of school. What is required from them is experiment and invention, not a slavish copying of ready-made courses based on semi-academic examinations, such as the Oxford or Cambridge junior local examinations. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) wanted me to start issuing syllabuses on the strict understanding that they should not be definite, but should allow for variation. I agree that the question as to whether the Board of Education should give a lead in the matter of syllabus to these schools is exercising the teaching profession in many areas; and I will only say this to-night,
that we do look to the teaching profession in this matter for experiment and invention and we hope they will not content themselves with accepting as a standard ready-made examinations which happen to be to hand but which were really designed for quite different purposes.
I have referred to the opposition which existed in many parts of the country to this new reform. That opposition was largely due to a strangely mistaken idea that the new type of central school was to be a mere substitute, and an inferior substitute, for the secondary school, a kind of finishing education which led to nothing more afterwards. That, of course, is the exact reverse of the truth, and I have been rather impressed by the fact that in Durham, where there was perhaps the strongest opposition a few years ago, they now propose to call their new non-selective senior schools "intermediate schools." I do not know whether that will turn out to be a convenient name, but I am quite sure that it does indicate what must be the essential character of the education in these schools, and indeed the essential character of any education which is worthy of the name. It must lead to definite opportunities for further education after a boy has left school at the ordinary age, whether it is 14 years, 15 years or 16 years. Just consider how new is this conception that education from the age of 11 should lead on to any further opportunities of education after wards. Before this new policy was launched the best thing that even educational reformers could find to do with elementary schools was to establish what are barbarously known as "higher tops" for the older scholars.
I do not pretend to have the same acquaintance with mountain tops as the hon. Member for Central Newcastle, but I have always understood that the great thing about the top of a mountain was that when you were there you could get no further, or at any rate no higher. Unless you are a person with a clear head and strong brain you are liable to fall over the edge; if you are a mountaineer you, of course, descend by a more dignified method. In any case, you arrive at the point of departure. That represents the real fundamental weakness in the whole of
our educational system. When you got to the end of the elementary school there was nothing to do for very many children. They could only fall over the edge; and that is what has made so hollow a great deal of the argument one hears constantly about educational economy. People say that in these days of international competition we cannot afford to economise on education; that we have to develop skilled workers for our industries. That is quite true. But if the people on whom you are spending money in the schools are going to be afforded opportunities for higher education it must be after the age of 16, which is the time when they really get the skill and knowledge and ability which is going to help this country in international competition. Merely by raising the school age, merely by heightening the top, you do not get any real improvement unless you provide a path from the summit to the higher summit for all who wish to go on.
7.0 p.m.
That brings me to the second part of my speech—the question of technical education. Technical education, of course, is not an accurate name. A great deal of the education in what are known as technical schools and colleges has very little to do with technology, or even the technique of industry, and, in fact, a good deal of it is not really directly vocational in character at all. But hitherto even that general side of our technical institates has been, as the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green has said —and it is quite true—in a watertight compartment of our educational system. It has been regarded as something apart from and out of the way of the rest of our national system. This general side has been rather looked down on. It has been assumed that the sort of general education that you get in a polytechnic is, after all, only a makeshift for children who had to leave school too early, and that that is the best you can say of it. The more definitely technical side of education in those institutions has also been looked down on a good deal, owing to the old superstition that a hard and fast line can be drawn between general and vocational education, and that only the liberal studies really deserve the name of education and everything else is a mere matter of functional training. Those prejudices and superstitions have contributed to putting technical education in a
watertight compartment. But now that we are developing this definite system of secondary and senior schools for children from the age of 11, we are able to bring the whole of the work of these institutions into integral relationship with our educational system as a whole.
The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green said that he wanted me to inquire into matters of technical education. As he knows, I received the Emmott Committee and I made a statement to them. I promised to undertake a whole system of inquiries into education for particular branches of commerce and industry and in different parts of the country. I explained to them that we had reorganised our inspectorate during the last three years, so that we had for the first time an intelligence service which I thought we could really ask to survey the position as a whole, and one which was not entirely absorbed in minute administrative detail and minute inspection of individual schools. I outlined a whole programme of inquiries. I hope shortly to publish a report showing what are our existing methods of co-operation with industry in technical education and sketching out what I think should be our future policy. If the Committee want to know the kind of result which I hope from this new programme, it can be seen from what has recently happened in Yorkshire—a rather remarkable occurrence.
The Board's Inspectorate completed last year a thorough inquiry into the whole system of technical education throughout the geographical county of Yorkshire. That report, a few years ago, would have fallen upon sterile ground, and would have passed practically unnoticed. Instead of that, a conference was summoned—it met last April—of all the various local education authorities in the County of Yorkshire, and they have established an elaborate organisation for cooperation between the various local authorities who manage technical institutes in the county and between them and the chief industries in the county, including electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, mining, woollen and worsted spinning, cloth weaving, cotton spinning and doubling, and building. Along that kind of line, I believe we can do a great work, and I believe also that anything that we can do will depend on the closest co-
operation with employers' and workers' organisations at every stage of our inquiry. That I propose to aim at, and I am considering for the purpose, besides the arrangements for consultations in particular enquiries which I outlined to the Emmett Committee, the setting up of some general arrangement for some form of consultation with employers' and workers' organisations in regard to this whole field of technical education.
That is the machinery that I propose to use for the development and rationalisation of our technical education. What will be the character of that education in the future What kind of opportunities will it offer to children going out from the senior or central or secondary schools to those institutions? Of course the opportunities, and the character of the education will be infinitely varied. It will be as varied as the character of the various branches of industry in this country. But I think one can see the general ideal at which we are aiming. Our technical schools and colleges must become—and here I would ask the attention of lovers of academic education—what one can see that our universities themselves really are, if one remembers their history—institutions whose courses of study have been formed upon a core of vocational requirements, but whose teaching has extended far beyond those requirements, and has in the course of generations profoundly modified those requirements themselves. This process is still going on. To the vocational requirements of the liberal professions have been added quite recently the requirements of the army, of engineering, of the chemical industry and so on. That process is applicable just as much to the technical colleges and institutes, and in a varying degree to the whole range of industrial occupations.
I would ask the Committee to consider whether this does not touch the very root of all social reform. We have today in the modern world what there has never been in the world before—a situation where men are banded together in immense organisations for production or marketing, whether it be the organisation of employers and workers in a particular industry or the organisation of hundreds of thousands of workers in a particular trade union. It is a remarkable thing that for the first time in the his-
tory of the country, membership of those great organisations depends on no recognised educational qualifications of skill or knowledge. The qualifications that enable men to enter the trade unions or employment in industry are, generally speaking, not educational at all. They are, in a very large number of industries, only requirements that a boy shall have worked for a number of years before he enters the ranks of skilled workers. There is no such mastercraft examination as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green mentioned. That goes to the root of a great deal of the difficulty and doubt and confusion in our social structure of the present day. The fact that the manual worker has no opportunity of acquiring that professional status and pride which comes from having conformed to definite educational requirements, having passed examinations or having gone through a definite course of study—it is that confusion and that want in our social structure to-day which education ought to aim largely at meeting and remedying. The development of education in our technical institutes and colleges in co-operation with industry offers, if it be looked at from that point of view, tremendous opportunities for further education, and those are the opportunities at which our new system of senior and secondary schools must largely aim at introducing their scholars.
It is along those lines that the Government are working. It represents a tremendous programme, which will need great efforts to carry out and which is already being carried out step by step, and at which everything we have done in the last three years has been aimed. It involves action not only by the Government and by local authorities, but action by the co-operation of industry and commerce as a whole, and of employers and workers. It means the consideration of the question of whether you can, or how far you can, develop higher education for industry on the basis merely of evening education, and how far evening education is suited for various courses of education for which it is being used to-day. It means the consideration of the whole question of day classes during employers' time, such as are increasingly being organised in various parts of the country in
various industries—in the engineering industry in the North West, for instance—and it involves a whole variety of questions of that kind.
Finally, I must say one word, although I have not been challenged to-night on the question of expenditure—at least not challenged in the sense that my expenditure is too high. While I have not been challenged or accused of extravagance I should like to say one word to those who are inclined to ask, very naturally, and as they should ask, "Well, it is a great programme, but what is it all going to cost?" In general reply to that I would say that, as I think the Committee and the country know, we have tried during the last few years to apply to educational finance the same methods of accurate survey and continual scrutiny which I have mentioned in various branches of our administration. We have tried to check any tendency at unreasonable or needless expenditure. We have got the administration of our educational finance on to a very sound basis.
I shall not go into the question of whether the percentage grants are the ideal or best system but, apart from the question of the nature of our grants, our educational finance is on a sound and businesslike basis. What I want to say in general about the question of economy is this: What costs money in educational administration is not comprehensive planning of the kind I have been suggesting to-night; what costs money in educational administration is drifting along. For instance, you may have a large number of small elementary schools gradually becoming obsolete. You may have replaced a particular school, but all the time, because you have indulged in no reorganisation of your schools, you are paying a large number of headmasters' salaries and have a very poor classification of the children in proportion to the teachers, while the number of teachers is higher than would be necessary if you grouped all the schools together, and higher than would be necessary to get a teacher for every class of 30 children. It is that sort of thing which costs money and which leads to administrative waste.
If that is true of the reorganisation of our elementary schools, it is even more true of technical education. What costs money in technical education is the
automatic expenditure which comes from a, continual flow of students into a technical institute for this or that subject, some of whom may very often not complete their course. They may continue their studies only for six or seven months and never go on with them again. It is that sort of unregulated expenditure which costs money. To have a plan such as I have outlined and go steadily on with a survey of the field, planning and executing your plan as occasion offers and arises is not extravagance. It is not that which costs money. Rationalisation is always cheaper than drifting, and I believe that the kind of policy that I have laid before the Committee to-night will prove in the long run not only a great agent for social reform, but will prove most economical and businesslike.

Mr. SEXTON: Has the noble Lord no answer to give, or is he not going to say anything about the question of supplementary teachers which I raised?

Lord E. PERCY: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. As he knows, I cannot deal with that point. Although he concealed it very cleverly in his speech, he is asking me whether I cannot change an Act of Parliament passed in 1925, dealing with the superannuation of teachers. I really cannot deal with that.

Mr. SEXTON: I am not asking you to do anything of the kind. I am asking you to make Regulations.

Mr. MORRIS: In the course of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman has made many interesting observations, and one of the most interesting was that education does not consist in bricks and mortar. That is very true. The school in itself is a social institution, and nothing was more interesting in the Noble Lord's speech than the fact that it showed evidence of an appreciation of a point of view which is rapidly changing throughout the country. A new attitude is growing up towards education and educational institutions. It has unfortunately been the case in this country that there has been a great deal of suspicion existing between employers on the one side and the populace at large as to the effects of education. On the other hand there has been a great deal of suspicion existing among the teaching profession and those engaged in educa-
tion, that what employers wanted was someone who would be efficient only for the purposes of their particular industry. The result of that suspicion on the part of the employers and of the teachers was to make the educational system of the country largely inefficient. It was handicapping it and making its development virtually impossible.
If the Noble Lord had said nothing beyond the fact that it was his policy and the policy of the Government to bring about a feeling of good will between the employers on the one side and the teaching profession on the other he could not have said anything which Members on all sides of the House would be more glad to support, if it could be carried out, and if they found that the Noble Lord was pursuing it. By such means they would appreciate that the school was a social institution having social functions and preparing its pupils in co-ordination with the employers and the State. Thus they would make the school an efficient school. For that purpose and for that object the most important school to-day, whatever else might be said, is the elementary school. Only a small proportion of the population go to a secondary school and a smaller proportion still to the Universities. The elementary school is by far the most important school, as far as the great mass of the population of the country is concerned, and it is because of that that one attaches a great deal of importance to the fact that even to-day there are 20,000 classes where the pupils number over 50, making the teacher's task an impossible one. The Noble Lord rightly pointed out that that number was decreasing and was not as great as it was three or four years ago.
We are glad to see that progress is being made, but it still a most urgent part of the elementary school problem. I think it is even more important than the question of raising the school age that you should have efficient teaching in the schools. Coupled with that problem there is another serious problem—the problem of the supplementary teacher. I was looking at a report issued yesterday, and it is a little alarming to find that 2,928 of these huge classes of over 50 are taught by uncertificated teachers and 272 by supplementary teachers. It aggravates your problem to have these large classes placed in charge
of the less competent members of your staff. The two things go together—an efficient staff and the size of your classes. The second and major problem is the character of the members of the staff of the school. The best teachers that this country can command should be found to be employed in the elementary schools. It cannot be said at the moment that the provision made for the training of teachers in elementary schools is satisfactory. I regret the new step which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman in abolishing the preliminary examination—I think it is called the certificate examination—from this year onwards and supplementing therefore an examination to be held by Cambridge and Oxford Universities, on a plan somewhat analogous to the Cambridge local examination. I see no reason why public teachers, instead of sitting for the examination for the preliminary certificate, should not sit for the ordinary University matriculation examination. It could not be said to be too difficult for them. They can be provided with the same educational facilities as other people, and I do not think it can be said that they are not as competent to pass a University matriculation examination as other people from the secondary schools.
I view that matter as important for this reason: Until teaching in the elementary schools is regarded with some degree of respect and of the vocational value, you will not be in a position to draw upon men of the same calibre as teachers in the elementary schools. You will be thrown back upon an inferior class. It may be necessary to remodel the whole of the elementary school system. I do not believe for a moment that the last word in elementary school organisation has been said. We are very much in the position to-day, as regards the mental sciences, as the physical sciences were in 300 years ago. The physical sciences have progressed at a much greater rate than the mental sciences. It is one of the best signs of the times, not so much what has been done, but the experimental attitude in which the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman himself regard the educational problem. They are prepared to look upon it as providing a chance of experiment in this way and in that, but
they are not tied down to one fixed and irremovable system. That is one of time great hopes of the future, rather than the actual achievement, of the day.
But in that progress, although education may be a good deal more than bricks and mortar, bricks and mortar count, and upon that account I want to ask one or two questions, particularly with regard to the educational system in Wales. I noticed that in the Report on the system of secondary education in Wales the schools are described as belonging to three different categories—intermediate schools, schools under the jurisdiction of the local authority, and some of the endowed schools. I noticed further that some time ago an influential deputation representing the University of Wales and the Central Welsh Board went to the right hon. Gentleman to urge upon him the necessity of appointing a National Council of Education for Wales. He intimated to that deputation that he was not in a position to do that, but that he was prepared to consider the setting up of an Advisory Council. On page 70 of the Report it is stated:
Proposals with reference to the constitution of such an advisory council and to the definition of the functions which it might be asked to perform are being explored by a committee of the University Court, and the Welsh Department of the Board of Education have expressed their readiness to co-operate in the preparation of such proposals.
That is a very interesting step forward, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, or from the Noble Lady if she replies later, how far these proposals have progressed. The other is this: It concerns university education, and particularly agricultural education. Agricultural education in Wales has been carried on, as far as the university is concerned, in association with two university colleges—the University College of Bangor and the University College of Aberystwith. Grants were paid by the Board to the amount of £3,800 a year to Bangor and Aberystwyth.

Lord E. PERCY: That does not come under these Estimates. The Ministry of Agriculture deals with that matter.

Mr. MORRIS: Then the only thing I would say is that, in the interests of agricultural education the right hon. Gentleman ought to communicate with the Minister of Agriculture and insist on the maintenance of these grants. If the
matter does not come under the right hon. Gentleman's jurisdiction I do not wish to pursue the subject. The main issues at the moment are the staffing of the schools with appropriate and fit teachers and the reduction of the size of the classes. Coupled with those questions is the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan). It is unfortunately the case, particularly in South Wales, that there is serious trade depression and educational progress, in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire especially, is being seriously handicapped by that trade depression. The building policy of the Board has been changed and instead of building 13 new schools as they did last year, the programme has been reduced to four schools. The provision of additional places is fewer by some thousands than it was last year. All this is bound to have a serious effect on the rising generation and the problem is a serious one, not only as it confronts the people who are at present suffering from trade depression, but in relation to the future.
I welcomed one statement in the speech of the President of the Board of Education which seemed to me to open a new avenue in elementary education. It has always struck me that in many elementary schools the position of head-master might be reviewed. The head-mastership of an elementary school is becoming largely an administrative post and one head-master could well administer a group of schools, the schools in the group all working together and the staffs cooperating in a larger field of elementary education. I welcome the spirit and the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The only thing I want to be quite sure about is that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is right when she says that the right hon. Gentleman has triumphed over the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not sure that all the followers of the right hon. Gentleman by any means share his enthusiasm. I hope he will be able to convert all his followers to his enthusiasm and pursue a programme of educational progress in the spirit indicated by his speech this afternoon.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: So far, this Debate has been characterised by a
moderate amount of criticism, a very considerable amount of approval and a remarkable speech from my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education, outlining a programme of development in central schools and technical schools, and of co-operation in the development of the training of teachers on right lines, between the universities and other authorities. One cannot help feeling a certain amount of sympathy with the Opposition. For the last three years, in the Debates on the Education Estimates, we have heard a great deal of sound and fury and accusation. This time there has been almost as much sound but very little fury because there has been little about which to be furious. This Government suffers from one defect which is shared to a large extent by the President of the Board of Education. That defect is that they do not possess the art of self-advertisement. When we consider what has happened in regard to educational progress during the past three years, it must be confessed that the country has good reason to congratulate the Government.
In the past three years, £18,000,000 has been granted for school buildings as compared with £8,500,000 in the preceding four years. The number of places in secondary schools has increased by 25,000 and the number of free places by 14,000. The arrangements for the training of teachers have been improved. Last year there was spent on education, from the Exchequer and the rates, about £71,500,000 as compared with £69,000,000 in 1924–25. We also find that 600 schools which were on the black list have been dealt with, that there are nearly 2,500 more teachers in the public elementary schools than there were three years ago, and that there are 20 per cent. fewer classes of over 50 pupils. With regard to the question of the size of classes a good deal of nonsense has been talked. I can speak from experience. I have had classes of over 50 and success in teaching such classes depends very much upon a variety of circumstances, such as the type of pupils in the class, the subject which is being taught and so forth.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You could not teach a class of 50—neither you nor anybody else.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I have done so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You only pretended, as you are doing now.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I admit that if there were many pupils in the class of the type of the hon. Member who interrupts, it would be very difficult. But when the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) says that there should be no class of more than 25 she is not speaking from practical knowledge. If you can manage to get the average class down to 40 in the elementary schools, you are not doing badly. I regret that there are so many classes of over 50 but the number is gradually being brought down. Then, what of the teacher?
The man that tanned the hides of us
Our ancient foe and friend,
as the poem says. I suppose I ought not to refer to the tanning of hides because that is now a class privilege of the idle rich. What has been done in recent years for the teacher? More than had been done for a very long time previously. The Superannuation Act of 1925 has placed the teacher in this country in a better position, as regards superannuation, than the teacher in any other country—I say so without fear of contradiction—and, with regard to salary, the adoption of the Burnham scales, which was hastened and supported by my Noble Friend, has improved enormously the salaries of the teachers. The result is that the position of the teacher in this country is excellent. In other directions the Government have been active. There has been appointed, for instance, a Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) to inquire into the training of teachers for rural schools. That Committee I believe is doing excellent work which is referred to in the Board's Report just published. That Report, as the Noble Lord has said, is in a very readable form and it conveys extremely useful information. I find in it, relating to secondary education, a most interesting section on free places. The number of free-place pupils it is stated has grown from something under 45,000 in 1910 to over 131,000 at the present time. That is a considerable advance, and another interesting fact in regard to the free pupils is that they are nearly 40 per cent, of the total number of pupils in these schools.
One reads with great satisfaction that those free pupils are doing excellently, whether we judge by the number who obtain school certificates or by the percentage of secondary school pupils who go to the universities. It is to be hoped that this system will be continually extended. It is a system to which we look to provide leaders in every walk of life. We heard to-day about the desirability of all children going to the same class of schools; about getting the best possible teachers for the elementary schools, and placing those schools in the best possible position. That is what we must aim at, but we can do these things only by degrees. In reference to the development of the selective central school, I should like to have heard the President of the Board of Trade say something about the provision of teachers for these schools. After all, the school depends on the teacher and it is no good providing a school of a certain type, unless you provide a teacher suitable to that type of school, who will develop what is most needed at present in this country—that is, skill and pride of handicraft among our boys and girls.
We have a great national asset in the inventiveness and mechanical aptitude of our boys and girls and it is for us to train that aptitude to the greatest extent possible. How are we going to hold our own in the markets of the world, unless we imbue our young people with that pride of handicraft? We can hold our own in the markets of the world by producing the best goods. We can produce the best goods, and our young people ought to be trained with that end in view. An American friend recently said to me, "There is an enormous market waiting for you in my country. We are quite willing to pay for the best goods. Send them to us." We have to provide those goods and, to a large extent, we must do so increasingly in competition with the rest of the world. We must leave to—I will not say the inferior races but I will say the less developed races—the manufacture of the coarser kind of goods. We must concentrate on the production of the very finest kind of goods. In order to do so, in face of the competition which we have to meet, we must provide in the central selective schools and the intermediate schools the right type of teacher.
There is another point, and that is with regard to reciprocal arrangements with the Dominions concerning superannuation. The matter was brought up at the Imperial Conference of 1926. The opinion was expressed that it was most desirable that where possible there should be reciprocal arrangements between the superannuation systems here and in the Dominions. I regret to say that the superannuation systems in the Dominions are of a very fragmentary character, and at present it is not possible to make such arrangements, but I hope some progress is being made.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that can hardly be done without legislation.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I apologise. I will simply add that anything of that nature that would increase the interchange of teachers between this country and the Dominions would be of the greatest advantage to our mutual understanding. I believe that the President of the Board of Education is on the right lines and that his policy is likely very largely to help the object which must be always the object of this House, and that is to make democracy safe for the world.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I wish to say a few words with regard to the Public Libraries Report of last year. The Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will recall how depressed the House was when it learned about a year ago that the bottom had been knocked out of the Hadow Report, and how we were cheered later when we heard the Noble Lord say last year that so far as the report of the Departmental Committee on Public Libraries was concerned, he meant to do his level best to see that the financial recommendation of £5,000 for the development of the work of the Central Library was carried through. In taking up that position, he has been fortified by all who are concerned in the work of the libraries of this country. I do not think there is a single association dealing with the library movement in this country that did not with great enthusiasm support the recommendations of that Committee a little more than a year ago. The Library Association, the Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaus, the General Committee of the British Institute of Adult Education, the Seafarers'
Education Service, the County Councils Association, and the Association of Directors and Secretaries of Education have all, in the course of the last year, unanimously endorsed the findings of that Report and supported the Noble Lord in the very welcome statement that he made as to the finding of a very modest sum for this important work.
It was with very great regret that on turning up the Estimates this year we observed that this particular sum of money was not provided for, and I should like to ask the Noble Lady whether this is an oversight or whether it is that the President has fought a pitched battle with the Treasury. I confess that I should like to see the Noble Lord, before his term of office expires, take a real stand in a pitched battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can conceive of no more glorious way of crowning his career as Minister of Education than that he should resign on some first class issue upon which he had fought that very right hon. Gentleman. I hope the Noble Lady, at all events, will assure us that perhaps in the course of this year her Noble Friend intends to bring in a Supplementary Estimate in which this sum of money will be included, or that certainly within the next 12 months this very important piece of library development will be carried through. As she knows, it affects most particularly the serious working men and women students of this country. It is not an ordinary library, but is concerned especially with the dear kind of text books to meet the needs of the very choicest working men and women students in the country. It is a subject that appeals very specially to the heart of the Noble Lord, and I want to reinforce the plea of the late Minister of Education for very careful reconsideration of this matter, in order that we may really take it that what was almost the promise of the Noble Lord last year is going to be redeemed at a very early date.
Speaking on this matter of the better provision of the adult education libraries of the country, I am reminded of some questions which have been asked in this House in the last few weeks concerning the activities of the Workers' Educational Association. We have had, from two or three hon. Members, doubts cast on the essentially educational character of that institution. There was one Conservative Member who suggested
that the Association, in the work it is doing through the tutorial class movement, was little other than a Socialist organisation. Indeed, one hon. Member at Question time suggested that it was even a Communist organisation, and so far as I could gather the ground for this extraordinary accusation was that somewhere or other there was a tutor who had political convictions presumably either of a Socialist or a Communist character. It is very important that it should be made clear in this House—and I am speaking in this connection as one who has rendered many years of very happy service as a tutor for the Educational Workers' Association—that investigation into the private political opinions of members of the teaching profession is very undesirable on the part of anybody, and least of all on the part of Members of this House.
I do not know of any more difficult piece of teaching work than that which is associated with the Workers' Educational Association, for they have to handle not only the natural sciences, but perhaps their most difficult work is that of handling subjects of controversy, the problems of modern citizenship and industry, and it is necessary, therefore, that they should set before themselves the very highest ideals of education. We, on this side, should never dream of questioning the fundamental test that a man is really competent to teach his subject and has a special capacity for teaching in this direction, and the last thing that we, as Socialists, should ever dream of would be to conduct a private inquiry into the political opinions of the members of that particular profession.
I hope the Noble Lady, if subsequent speakers from the Tory benches should repeat what. I must call these slanderous allegations against what I believe to be one of the noblest parts of the British teaching profession, will make it quite clear that the Board of Education does not exist to make discriminations against Workers' Educational Association teachers, or any other branch of the teaching profession, on the ground of the political opinions that they hold. In point of fact, a very large proportion of the members of that profession, as the Noble Lady knows, belong to her own party, and people with Labour
views are inevitably, under the circumstances, in a minority, but I would like to ask her to make it clear, when she comes to reply, that the Workers' Educational Association is essentially an educational movement handling very difficult problems of education, and that it is a matter of the highest concern that the integrity of those tutors should be safeguarded against the kind of questions that we have had in this House during the past two or three weeks.
I would like to turn to a third matter, about which I must confess a certain matter of concern. I notice that in one of our daily newspapers, the "Daily Dispatch," there has been offered recently a kind of Empire travel scholarship to the boys and girls of our schools. I know that under the influence of the Empire Marketing Board and various other organisations unusual importance has been directed to the question of education in matters that concern the British Empire, and certainly we, on this side, would be among the first to welcome every genuine attempt at education concerning the British Commonwealth of Nations, but I confess to a certain amount of concern when we get a daily newspaper appealing to the boys and girls of our schools and offering prizes of a particularly attractive kind to them. From representations made to me, I have reason to believe that parents are getting in many instances seriously concerned that their children are devoting their time to competitions of this kind, to the neglect of their serious studies in school; and I think that, if the Noble Lady will inquire of the teaching profession, she will find there a serious amount of concern about the undermining and harassment of the essential work of the elementary and secondary schools growing out of public competitions of this kind and out of the possibilities of exploiting the lives of boys and girls in this way.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): Can the hon. Member say what form this competition takes?

Mr. SMITH: If the Noble Lady will look at. the columns of the "Daily Dispatch," she will get full particulars of the competition. The last point that I wanted to raise concerns again the
children mainly in elementary and secondary schools, in relation to the annual air display encouraged by the Minister of Air. She will recall that last year the Board of Education cooperated with the Hendon Air Display to the extent of encouraging boys and girls of the schools of London and district to take a half-day's holiday, or it may be a full day's holiday, in order that they might witness the demonstration on the day before the public festival. I want to make it clear that we welcome every opportunity for the wider education of our boys and girls, and in particular it is very desirable that they should all get the fullest possible knowledge of what is perhaps the greatest triumph of our age, namely, the conquest of the air; but there is a widespread concern lest the Board of Education, in this very praiseworthy effort to broaden and enrich the stream of educational influences for our boys and girls, should be subordinating themselves as an educational institution to the military interests of the Ministry of Air.
8.0 p.m.
The Noble Lady will recall that last year there was a bombing expedition carried out on what was described as a native village, and that in consequence a number of questions were raised in this House as to the wisdom of organising, through the Board of Education, large numbers of children to witness that kind of military exhibition. We who live in a country which has always been characterised by voluntary institutions have always regarded very jealously the encroachments of military Departments on to our educational institutions. There is nothing of which the average-minded British man and woman stands so much in jealous care as that we should have nothing in the nature of what we used to call "Prussianisation" in our educational institutions. In this particular case, it does not mean that one of the fighting departments is going to the schools, but that the schools are going into the department of the Air Service itself. I do not know what is the intention with regard to the Hendon Air Display this year, hut I ask the Noble Lady, if she assists in organising the boys and girls of London and district to have the opportunity of witnessing the triumphs of civil air development this
year, to use her influence with the Air Minister, so that there shall not be the kind of spectacle which we had last year, and so that the minds of the children shall not be drawn into romantic military displays, such as we had a year ago. I am the more encouraged to express this view, because the teachers' organisations in their national executive —certainly four of them, including the National Union of Teachers—declared that, while they welcomed this wider conception of education, they were unanimous in taking the view that it is not consistent with good education that the Board should lend itself to taking boys and girls to a purely military display. I have confined my remarks to four definite and specific points. I have refrained from going into questions of wider policy, and I hope that, when the Noble Lady replies, she will give us some encouragement with regard to these points. So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, I hope that she will give us some indication that, if she cannot induce her chief to put up a first-class fight for the things that matter in education, she will do it herself and set him a good example.

Mr. VIANT: I listened very attentively to the speech of the President of the Board of Education, and I found it rather impressive, but I feel that the bouquets which were offered to him by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) were by no means merited. When listening to the President's speech and his outlines of development for the future, I naturally referred to the Estimates to see what provision was made for this development, expecting to find that there would be an increase for this year as compared with preceding years. To my astonishment, I found that the Estimates are down by £650,000, and, when the hon. Member for Windsor suggested that the Conservative party suffers from their inability to engage in self-advertisement, I felt that, the President of the Board of Education was undoubtedly a genius in self-advertisement. I have reason to doubt the sincerity of his programme and his intentions. If his programme, as outlined this evening, is to be carried out, more money should have been provided in the Estimates.
I will take as an illustration the position of the London County
Council. It has been admitted in this House time after time, and by the Board of Education, and more especially by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, that playing fields are essential to the health of the boys and girls in the schools. The secondary schools are provided, to a very large degree, with playing fields. The London County Council ventured to put aside £500 to be given as grants towards scholars in London County Council schools who are likely to benefit by being permitted to engage in athletic instruction, and the Board of Education ruled it out. That is a small sum when we consider that the population or Greater London approximates to 8,000,000 persons, and we are entitled to form the opinion that the Board of Education were not prepared to allow that sum to be so spent because it would mean admitting a principle of which the Board was not in favour, and that it might lead to further development. We are in every way justified in saying that the President of the Board, who has from time to time supported the principle of playing fields, is not prepared to back up his opinion in a practical manner by allowing a small amount of this kind to he granted by the London County Council. The physical development of the pupils in the schools is essential for their mental development. That is evidenced by the manner in which the secondary schools are provided with playing fields. I hope that, in the very near future, the Board of Education will be prepared to give more consideration to this aspect of the subject than they have been prepared to give in the past.
The President in his speech introduced the word "rationalisation," and he said that his Department had embarked upon what may be termed a rationalisation of our educational policy. When I look at the Estimates, I am confirmed in my mind that it does not mean rationalisation; what it means is stabilisation, in keeping with the so-called stable government. Instead of an increase in the amount to be spent on education, there is a reduction in the Estimates. Local authorities are being informed from time to time that they are over-staffed. Mention has been made this evening of the fact that the number of children in the schools to-day is some 40,000 less, and I suppose that this is the reason for the President of the Board of Education ask-
ing local authorities to make strict inquiries and investigations as to whether they are over-staffed with teachers. I had hoped that, in view of the smaller number of children, it would have given the opportunity of reducing the size of classes. The hon. Member for Windsor said that it was an easy matter to teach 50 boys or girls. I have served under an education authority, and it has appeared to me that many of the teachers have been quite unable to teach the boys and girls in such large numbers. Is there a reason why we do not have smaller classes? We shall never perfect our educational system if we allow the classes to be of such a size that the teacher is unable to come into individual contact with the scholars and to find out their special aptitudes. It is useless trying to impose arithmetic on some boys and girls: if they were approached individually by the teacher, and the teacher was enabled to show them individually the advantages of arithmetic, it would make all the difference in the world.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask your ruling, Sir. Is it in order to continue this Debate when there is not a Member of the Tory party in the House, save the two Members on the Front Bench?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Attlee): It is quite in order.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. VIANT: As there are 30,000 fewer boys and girls in our schools to-day, instead of education authorities reducing their staffs, classes ought to be reduced in size, in order to enable teachers to come more directly into contact with their pupils. Though I have had no experience as a school teacher, I have taught apprentices in workshops, and I know that if you can get into direct contact with the apprentice and show him the advantages of going to evening classes in order to improve his arithmetic and extend his knowledge in other subjects, in order that he may become a good mechanic, he may see things—for instance, the bearing of arithmetic on his everyday work—in an entirely different light. Classes in our elementary schools ought to be of such a size as would give
a teacher facilities for more personal contact with his pupils. Quite a large number of teachers are unemployed at the present time. When the Labour Government came into office in 1924, high hopes were inspired, and a large number of young men and young women entered the teaching profession in the belief that this country would embark upon a great educational policy. A reduction in the size of the classes would enable a large number of unemployed teachers to be absorbed.
Nursery schools are very important. A tribute has been paid to the work of the sisters MacMillan in the East End of London. Theirs was a great experiment, the value of which is appreciated by everyone who has been at pains to investigate it. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) paid a tribute to that work this afternoon, and I hope the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, being a mother herself and having done a large amount of social work, will be prepared to admit the value of these nursery schools, not only from the point of view of the health of mothers in crowded areas, but from the point of view of the health of the children. I hope that she, with her motherly instincts and her experience, will influence the chief of her Department to bring about a development of these schools throughout the country. If we start with children when they are very young there is every possibility that their health and their opportunities in life will be greatly enhanced when they grow up.
As regards our general educational policy, I think it has been aimed at selecting the best brains in our schools and concentrating upon their development. I admit that we have derived ceradvantages from that policy, but I think we have arrived at the stage when it may be to our advantage as a nation to change that policy from the point of view of producing a better type of citizen. I am told that America has already changed her policy on this point. In developing the best brains we have followed two courses. On the one hand we have provided for fee-paying pupils to be received in our secondary schools, and on the other hand pupils in the elementary schools are given opportunities to win free places in those secondary schools. If we are to get the
best results and to eliminate the air of superiority which attaches to our secondary schools—as is evident by the eagerness of quite a large number of parents to get their children into secondary schools, thus leading to the development of class consciousness—we can only do it by abolishing the fee-paying system altogether. All citizens will then recognise the need of giving their children the best possible education, not in order that they may be superior to someone else, but in order that they may become the best possible citizens, and that ought to be our objective.
We talk about superiority, but there is no such thing as general superiority, it is only relative. The classical education given in our universities to-day may produce one who is a most efficient linguist, but whose abilities and knowledge in other directions may be very limited, so that the superiority is relative and not general. We may produce one who is a genius in certain directions and another who is a genius in certain other directions, but there is no such thing as general superiority. The curriculum in our schools ought to undergo a great change, and until we aim at finding out the particular aptitude of individual boys and girls and then educating them in accordance with that special aptitude, we shall not direct them into the channels where they will attain the best results. I am not speaking from the utilitarian point of view. We are too much inclined to introduce the utilitarian aspect into our educational system, and ultimately it may prove to be disastrous. We ought to preserve a sense of proportion. I hope the few remarks I have made will induce the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to give me answers to the one or two points I have raised which will satisfy us that the speech of the President of the Board of Education was not mere window-dressing but that the Estimates have been prepared in such a way that the programme he outlined this evening will be carried out in its entirety.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I have listened to-night to the informative and interesting speech of the President of the Board of Education with very great pleasure. The enthusiasm which characterised that speech, which I know is shared by the Parliamentary Secretary, was not shared
by the Members of the party to which they had the misfortune to belong. One had suspicions before about the lack of interest of the supporters of the Government in educational matters, but those suspicions have been greatly increased to-night by the remarkable absence of Members of the Conservative party from this very interesting Debate.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: We have as many Members present as the Liberal party.

Mr. EVANS: I think the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) is the only Member present out of a party of 400, if you exclude those who are present as officials. There are two matters connected with education in Wales upon which I should like to make a few observations. Last year, when the Estimates were under discussion, I raised a protest against the way in which the Board of Education was dealing with the National University of Wales, and I am glad to notice that the grant to that institution has been increased. With reference to setting up of the Advisory Council which the President of the Board of Education said he was prepared to consider, I do not think that any Advisory Council of that character can really fulfil the functions of the other body for which educationists in Wales have been asking during the last few years. I will not comment upon that point now, but I think we are entitled to ask what progress has been made in the negotiations which are taking place between the Board of Education, the University of Wales, and the Central Welsh Board. Unless this body is going to be one endowed with some real responsibility, it is not going to fulfil any useful purpose, and in all these negotiations the President of the Board of Education should bear that fact in mind.
I pass from Welsh topics to a general consideration of the education question. While I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the President, I would like to say that there are still some considerations which give rise to anxiety in regard to our system of education. The first question I want to raise deals with the size of the classes. Associated with that subject is the question of the staffing of the schools. In the Report published
this year on education, there is a paragraph on page 27 which I think is a little disquieting. It says:
The proportion of graduates employed has decreased in the case of men to 78.5 per cent. as compared with 80.0 per cent. on 31st March,]926, and in the case of women to 60.4 per cent. as compared with 61.6 per cent. on 31st March, 1926. The number of classes over the normal limit of 30 has increased slightly from 3,045 on 1st October, 1925, to 3,085 on 1st October, 1926, but of these only 87 contained more than 35 pupils as compared with 102 in the previous year.
It is only fair to say that in case of both elementary and secondary schools there are signs of improvement. Nevertheless, the figures we have before us do show that there is room for considerable advancement in this direction. That argument applies not merely to the size of the classes but also to the staffing. Progress is being made in securing closer association between the training colleges and the universities, and I believe that is a step in a direction which is likely to prove very useful. It is a good thing in itself, but, apart from that, it is good because it furnishes an additional link in the whole educational system in which you start at the elementary school, work up to the secondary school, then to the colleges, and lastly to the universities.
I am not sure whether hon. Members realise the great influence which is exercised by the school teacher in the social life of this country. Anybody who is acquainted with life in our rural areas knows perfectly well that the teacher in an elementary school in a village can be a real power in that particular locality for good or evil. I am glad to think that almost invariably they are a power for good. They act in a way which appeals to the sense of citizenship of the people in the locality. The elementary school teachers advise people on all sorts of things, even on legal matters, although perhaps not always very wisely. These teachers are great figures in the social life of the community, and anything that is directed to the improvement of the type of man and woman who teach in those schools is of great assistance to the social life of the community.
Another question referred to by the President of the Board of Education was technical education. I welcome the spirit in which the Noble Lord spoke upon that topic. I do not think I am lack-
ing in my appreciation of the importance of securing a, sound technical education, but I would like to emphasise that if you are going to regard technical education merely from the point of view of training boys and girls for a particular occupation, then you are taking a very short view, and a very narrow-sighted view, of technical education and education in general. You have to regard all these facilities for good technical education as part of the greater problem of educating citizens, so that they can worthily play their part in the life of the community.
Within the last few months the Board of Education have published a very interesting interim Report, and the Committee have been considering facilities for educating women in our rural areas. One of the central features of their Report is the emphasis which the members of the Committee lay upon the fact that the whole basis for anything which you can do in regard to technical education is giving to the children first a general education, and training their minds so that they can absorb whatever other technical instruction you can give them, and particularly a general education which will develop their minds so that they can see things for themselves, and think out things for themselves. If you are going to deal with technical education from the purely occupational point of view, you are bound to lower the whole standard of our education.
The trouble about our discussions in the House on the Estimates of the Board of Education is that they deal with so many matters of detail, in which we are all interested in varying degrees, arid which successive speakers take up, that we are apt to be in the position of not being able to see the wood for the trees. There are a great many details in regard to our educational system which are, naturally, the subject of inquiry, and occasionally of criticism. What I would like to see would be a day for a discussion in the House, not upon the details of the Estimates of the Board of Education, but a day when we can try and picture for ourselves what we really mean by having an educational system in the country at all.
Children go to school, the majority of them are thrown upon the world at the age of 14 without any chance of getting any further instruction, and then
employers of labour, and particularly business people, tell us that education is a failure. What on earth is the use of saying that education is a failure when the great majority of the boys and girls of this country are thrown out into the world to face life as it is at the present time, and when the only equipment that this great state of ours gives to those children is the small amount of training that they can get in an elementary school in the early years of their life? It would be a great thing, I believe, for the House of Commons and for the country, if we could have a real survey of what we are doing in the educational life of this country—how many children have finished their education at the age of 14; what provision we are making to enable boys and girls whose parents cannot afford to pay the fees to go on from the elementary schools to the secondary schools; arid what provision we are making to enable promising boys and girls to go on from secondary schools to colleges and universities. I believe that, if the country could only see how little we are doing in that direction, there would be a really great move forward.
Before I sit down I should like to put this consideration to the Noble Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know what her views or opinions are as to the result of the next General Election. It may be that she hopes that a Conservative Government will still be in power, but I venture to think that very few Members on the Conservative Benches are optimistic enough to think that, even if a Conservative Government is in power, it will be in power with a large majority. The result will be that in the next Parliament there will be an even larger body, though perhaps not a more enthusiastic body, of opinion in the House that will insist that the Government of the day, whatever Government it may be, shall really take a wide and a wise outlook as to the demands for greater educational facilities in this country. The Noble Lord to-day has referred to the necessity for a programme. He said, quite truly, that rationalisation is less expensive than drifting. But is he applying that to his own Department? Are there not at the present time indications of drifting in the Board of Education, even in these days, although I admit his own ability and that of the Noble Lady. The point is that what the
Board of Education ought to be doing at the present time is preparing a programme, not for one, or two, or three years, but a programme which will enable this country in the course of the next few years to take a real step forward in the direction of increasing the educational facilities which are given to our children, and improving the educational facilities which now exist, thereby helping to build up, in the future, generations which will be more worthily fitted to carry on the responsibility which we shall hand on to them.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I think that in all quarters of the House we are agreed in speaking of education as the idealism of development in character. I believe, also, that every section of the House has as its definite purpose an enlargement of the possibilities of creative genius in every stratum of society. Our difference is in regard to method. On one side—I am not saying which side it is—you get the pure idealism; on another side you get a sort of diluted mixture of practicality and idealism; while in a third section there is a combination which is neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring. With this general menu to digest, the President of the Board of Education has to consider, with the money that he possesses—after the successful raid which, so we were informed by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), he made on the coffers of the Treasury—how far and to what extent he can apply this mixture of practicality, aestheticism and idealism to the general purposes of the enlargement of character which we know as education. To-night I simply want to contribute one or two thoughts on one section thereof, namely, upon the question of technical education.
Whether for good or ill, we in this nation have accepted the swiftest of speed lust in industrialism. Whether or not it fits in with the ideals and theories of those who accept Socialism, the fact remains that we are a highly industrial ised nation, and we bid fair to be in due course a nation with the highest industrialised future in the world. When we are dealing with the question of technical education, we have to consider how to present technical education so that the craftsman can retain his creative
soul and his inventive genius, and at the same time walk in the mundane paths of life and perform his function of looking to his home and presenting his quota to the general civilisation of his own nation. Any technical education, therefore, must be applied, firstly, to retaining the idealism, and, secondly, to getting the practical results of that which has been taught.
I want to make it my first point that His Majesty's Government should get proper value for what they spend in regard to technical education in schools. What exactly is the position in regard to the great creative trades of this country I am not concerned at the moment with the shopkeeping views of a certain section of a nation which has no need be in understood, to be ashamed of the features that contribute to its shop-keeping proclivities; but no nation can live by shopkeeping alone—it must live by creating and manufacturing. What are the particular features that we have to consider? Iron and steel, machinery and shipbuilding are three main, vital issues in industry, and I challenge any hon. Member of the House to tell me of any technical institution in this country that can compare, in point of modern up-to-dateness, with some of the technical institutions in the United States of America, France and Germany.
Let us take the case of shipbuilding. There is no finer body of men in the world than the engineers and machinists who build ships in this country; and for their quality of craftsmanship be it agreed they are the poorest paid. If such men desire to improve their craftsmanship, technically and scientifically, there is no technical institution for them similar to what they have in France, Germany, and the United States. The Board of Education would do well to have a general stocktaking in respect of technical institutions, schools of metallurgy in those machinery and engineering centres where this specialised knowledge is gained. The han. Member who spoke last very properly suggested that technical education should not be dealt with from a regional standpoint. I accept to the full that the parish pump position is not good enough to-day in regard to the training of craftsmanship, but we must accept the fact that the local training and posi-
tion of many counties in Britain are of such a nature as by the habits and traditions of the people to centre certain industries in certain places. Further, the position of water, coal, iron ore, oft.-times bears its part in the centring of industries in certain localities. Some shipbuilders might possibly like to go into farming districts and some farmers would like to go into shipbuilding districts, but, of course, the thing is impossible. I suggest that there should be also closer association between universities and technical institutions, for there are many technical institutions which do their work more efficiently than many universities. But when we consider the minds that are dominating the different sections of life and the issues of life and that have been trained to use their intelligence and their brains as the results of attendance at the universities we admit the greater use industrially of the universities.
Secondly, I plead that there should he greater camaraderie between local authorities. To give an example which engineering minds will appreciate, take the Diesel engine. There is no technical institution which can enable a marine engineering or shipbuilding student to make himself thoroughly efficient and improve his creative genius, also eliminating standardisation if he happens to be out of the region of Glasgow, Newcastle, or Barrow. This is one of the terrible issues of a highly industrialised nation such as ours. There is no specialised combination institution training centres such as you get in Germany, France and the United States that can deal with the further development of the Diesel engine in this country.
I want to nay my tribute to the textile machinery makers. Though they have not been having a very good time lately, they have out of their own pockets provided in many technical institutions some of the most up-to-date exhibits and some of the most up-to-date patterns of what they make and at their own cost. But you cannot do that with shipbuilding when you consider that to build a ship costs what it does. I do not ask the Board of Education to spend a great amount of money, but I ask them to get value for what they are spending by
reorganizing these technical institutions so that it will be possible for our craftsmen to retain their souls and bring forward even more the genius which has made us the greatest manufacturing nation in the world. I desire to advocate better facilities for the interchange of engineering and technical students between this and other countries. There are facilities in regard to scholastic interchange, but there are none in regard to technical training in engineering, metallurgical and textile work between our own universities and technical institutions and those across the waters. Much can be done there. I welcome with very great pleasure the forward movement that has taken place in regard to these matters of education by the League of Nations, and if we are prepared to take a lead in this matter by our representation on the Council, it will be possible at very little cost to take full advantage of that opportunity. Germany and France have not exactly the same sort of technical institutions that we have, but I know from my own practical knowledge, for I have technical industrial knowledge of other countries than our own, that their universities are willing to interchange their students and give opportunities such as we desire.
I want to plead with employers of labour, through the agency of the educational section of the Ministry, for a closer comradeship in regard to giving opportunities for research work between some of the bigger firms in industry and their lesser brethren. Where you have a firm with a capital of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 why should there be any dog in the manger policy towards those who cannot, for lack of capital, come into the same orbit 1 I had a long talk with Mr. Schwab of the great American Steel Company, who patriotically placed his genius at the disposal of this country when we were taking our part in the Great War. He told me: "We have a magnificent forward movement in regard to the rolling of steel in this country. I am prepared to allow any iron or steel roller to come into our works and, if there are metallurgical specialities that we possess which you have not got, I am willing to advise my directors to give you full facilities for research." It was a magnificent offer and one worth taking
notice of. Some of our great employers of labour are well forward. I know some in the silk and artificial silk industry who are giving their specialised knowledge to others, under proper safeguards and guarantees of course. But there are certain industries which cannot afford to do this because of the cost. I pleaded for this ten years ago in this House. Now it is coming home to roost. I am not going to say, "I told you so," but I could prove from my own speeches, if they were worth considering, that I pleaded for a reduction of Income Tax to any firm who would be so progressive as to give a definite promise to spend the taxation imposed upon them on the furtherance of research in their own industry.
If we as a nation are to retain our industrial soul—this speed lust without idealism is going to make us a nation of robots and we shall lose in the long run—there will have to be better and more practical connecting links between the universities and the technical institutions, between the universities and the employers of labour and between the universities and technical institutions here and on the Continent. I hope the Government will be able to help in the matter. Then when the time comes for us to play our part as industrialists, we shall be able to present our quota as the finest race of craftsmen the world has known, and assist in the general settlement of peace which peaceful earning capacity in industry always ensures to every nation.

Mr. AMMON: I intervene for a few minutes in order to raise one point. It will be remembered, by some hon. Members, at any rate, that shortly before the Adjournment for the Easter Recess I raised a question with regard to Dulwich College and the action of the President of the Board of Education in approving the scheme that was then brought forward. It will also be within the memory of hon. Members present on that occasion that, although the case was presented with 'courtesy and fairness, the Noble Lord succeeded in being more offensive and insulting than usual, on an occasion when there was no opportunity—as it was on the late Adjournment—to reply to him. I rise merely to ask whether we can be
given some information with regard to the scheme. Briefly summarised, the position is as follows: The foundation of Dulwich College was originally left for the welfare of very poor and destitute children. Through the process of years the whole of that foundation has been diverted to other channels and is now being used for the sons of the wealthy. During the period immediately following the War the revenues of the College suffered considerably, and the Governors applied to the public authority for assistance, the natural corollary to that being that they had to give a certain number of scholarships, and these scholarships in 1927 numbered about 170.
They provided a suitable outlet for some of the abler lads front the elementary and secondary schools, and they also provided a connecting link with the universities. The lads who went to Dulwich College proved themselves so efficient that they swept off nearly all the extra prizes in the college. Then Dulwich College made an application for a new scheme under which they would no longer receive public grants and no longer provide the necessary scholarships. The agitation that followed brought a certain amount of public opinion to bear upon the position, with the result that they stated that a certain number of scholarships would be given even under the new scheme. What I want to ask the Noble Lady—I know we shall get a courteous reply from her—is exactly how many scholarships will be provided under the new scheme, and how the scholarships will be allocated? For instance, are the scholarships to be selected as hitherto from elementary and secondary schools on real merit, or are they to be left solely within the discretionary power of the governors of Dulwich College? The reason I ask this is that at the bottom of the old agitation to dispossess the elementary school lads of these prizes was a strong objection by some people, the paying people, to their boys going to the school and mixing with the lads who came from the homes of working-class people. Therefore, it would be interesting if we could be informed exactly how these scholarships are to be allocated.
9.0 p.m.
There is one other point upon which we would like some information. The
Noble Lord, in replying to me on the last occasion, when it was impossible to get in a rejoinder, led the House to think that the beneficiaries of scholarships to the secondary school were limited to persons in receipt of incomes of somewhere between £300 and £700 a year. That was insinuating that those people were very much better off than some of the persons who were paying for the entrance of their sons. As a matter of fact, that is not true. The scholarships are open to any lads from any home anywhere, provided their parents are willing to let them go. I hope that that may be made quite clear and that there is no deliberate intention to mislead the House in this connection by indicating that the lads who went from elementary and, secondary schools were in a social position, as far as income was concerned, equal to, or perhaps better than, the fee-paying boys. It is important that there should be some information as to the number of scholarships compared with the number under the system which has just been set aside by the new scheme, and the method that is going to be adopted in choosing them.

Mr. COVE: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) at any great length in his general observations as to the relationship of technical education to industry and to the further education that can be obtained in the university, except to say that it seemed to me that his speech illustrated very clearly another breakdown in the private business and private enterprise of this country. He quite obviously admitted that private firms, industries based upon private ownership, run for private profit, could no longer provide the technical equipment that was necessary to carry on those industries, and that employers had now to come to the State to provide the technical efficiency required in order to make their industries a technical and productive success.
Having said that, I want to go back to what is, after all, perhaps the most important speech of this evening—the speech of the President of the Board of Education. In the first place I want to refer to the answer he gave to the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey),
who raised two points. The first point was the feeding of the school children, and the second point was the treatment of Mr. John Towers. Quite frankly, in the latter case, I was very disappointed to find that the Minister was not prepared to give us an assurance that he would reconsider the case of Mr. Towers. I say bluntly and quite openly, without fear of contradiction, that the judgment delivered upon this teacher was a judgment influenced more by political considerations than by any educational or efficiency consideration as far as this teacher is concerned. For an offence entirely outside the school, for something that was not committed inside the school, this teacher has not merely been suspended from teaching but has actually had his certificate taken away from him. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee tell us that we should not bring party politics into the question of education. This is the first case in the history of educational administration in this country, so far as I know, where political considerations and party political considerations have determined the judgment delivered by the President of the Board of Education. It is a deliberate injustice to this teacher, and cannot be justified by the right hon. Gentleman. It is political vindictiveness.
No charge of professional inefficiency has been made against this teacher. No charge of being unjust to the children in the school has been laid against him. He was convicted of a technical offence, of doing something for which had he done it inside the school nobody could have touched him, but because it happened just outside the confines of the school, the court was able to give a decision against him and the Minister of Education punishes him, in addition to the punishment which he received at the hands of the Court. This case has made the teachers of this country very uneasy. The Conference of the National Union of Teachers have considered the case, and there is no teacher, whatever his political colour may be, but is disturbed at what they consider to be a political decision of the President of the Board of Education. I resent that decision, and until it is remedied and until this man's certificate is restored to him, I shall consider, and I believe every teacher will consider, that the decision
was based upon political considerations, which are thoroughly unjustified as far as Mr. Towers is concerned.
What has the right hon. Gentleman said about the feeding of school children? In 1928, a Minister of Education, who has in his hands the physical, mental and moral well-being of the children of this country, 600,000 or so of them, comes to this House and says that it is sufficient for starving children to be fed with one milk meal a day, if they can get a certificate from the medical officer of health. What these children need is a round square meal. [Laughter]. At any rate, a square meal that will make them round. You cannot raise an Al physical nation on the basis of medical certificates for malnutrition. You cannot get healthy bodies on that basis, and much less can you educate children in the schools, if they are to have one milk meal a day. One would have imagined from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman prompted questions on this matter, that he would have had something much more humane to say. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), at the direct invitation of the Noble Lord, put a question in order that the right hon. Gentleman might show to this House and the country how humane, how benevolent, how sympathetic he had been to the children in the distressed areas. If he is satisfied with that standard, then I say that it is a disgrace to capitalistic civilisation, and a condemnation of it. The standard of one milk meal a day is not a standard on which to raise the physical well-being of a child, much less a standard on which to educate them. Talk about waste! It is waste of the nation's money to try to educate children in our schools if they are ill-fed and ill-clothed. No teacher can educate a child that is not well fed. I wish the Noble Lord had been in his place to bear my remarks. I hope the matter will be driven home further in this Debate.
The Noble Lord claimed some credit for progress. I cannot find any progress in the Estimates or in the explanatory note, neither can I find any progress in the speech which he delivered. I can find organised insidious reaction and stagnation. He twitted the right hon. Member for Newcastle, Central (Mr. Trevelyan), who was Minister of Education
in the Labour Government, about the size of classes, and seemed to claim credit for progress in the reduction of the size of classes. Some hon. Members even on this side thought that the Noble Lord had made a case out on this point. The size of classes is one of the most important educational policies that confronts us. You cannot get true education in classes of 50 and 60 children. You must have very much smaller classes. The size of classes at Eton and Harrow as compared with the size of classes in our ordinary schools afford an example in the educational world of class distinction and class privileges. It is impossible to teach children in classes numbering 50 and 60.
Let us see whether the charge of stagnation made by the late President of the Board of Education is not true in relation to this problem. I find that, in round figures, under the heading "Classes of over 50," that in March, 1924, there were 24,972 classes of over 50 children; in March, 1925, 21,000; in March. 1926, 20,000; and in March, 1927, just over 20,000. Under the administration of the Labour Minister of Education, the drop in the classes of over 50 children totalled 3,000. With the ebbing of the impetus given by the Labour Minister of Education, there was a drop in the number of these classes of 1,000 in 1926, but in 1927 instead of there being a decline in the number of these large classes there was a gradual ascent. These figures prove conclusively that in regard to classes of over 50 children, instead of pursuing the policy of reduction in the size of the classes, there has been a gradual return to the old policy of an increased number of large classes. On March 31st, 1927, there were 43,904 classes with 40 and not over 50 children; there were 19,934 classes with aver 50 children and not over 60; and there were 278 classes with over 60 children in number, so that there are 63,306 classes which ought to be reduced in size. How many children does that represent? Stated as a percentage, it is 42 per cent. of the classes in elementary schools which are far too large. It means that 1,000,000 children are in classes of over 50 and about 3,000,000 children in classes over 40. Is that anything to boast about? And there is this curious fact, that if a class drops from 50 to 49 it does not come into the 50 category but into the 40 category. It reminds me of the drapers'
reduction, an article is not 5s. it is 4s. 11¾d. The Noble Lord is proud of his drapers' reduction, he is proud of the 4s. 11¾d. reduction which he may have made here and there. In the classes of children below the age of 11 years he admits himself in his own Report that there has been no reduction in the size but an increase—

Duchess of ATHOLL indicated dissent.

Mr. COVE: I see the Noble Lady shake her head. It is said in the Board of Education's Report:
In these circumstances it is not surprising to find that the number of large classes containing over 50 children under the age of 11 has increased.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the hon. Member kindly read the explanation?

Mr. COVE: The explanation does not do away with the fact. The Noble Lord said that he had reduced the size of the classes—

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the hon. Member will give the whole of the facts he will see that there was a full reduction of 20 per cent. up to last year during our period of office in the size of classes over 50. Last year, owing to circum- stances explained in the Report and repeated by the President of the Board of Education, there has been a slight drop from 20 per cent. The reduction is not quite fully 20 per cent. at the moment, but it is a reduction of almost 20 per cent. for the three years during which we have been in office.

Mr. COVE: I quite accept what the Noble Lady says. I cannot be expected at the moment to deal with percentages; I am dealing with the actual figures given in the Report. As for the explanation, it is merely an excuse. As a matter of fact, the Board of Education knew how many babies were born in a certain year and how many they would have to cater for when they came of school age. They knew the birth rate in 1920 and 1921, and they knew that five or six or seven years later these babies would be coming into the schools, and it was the duty and the responsibility of the Board of Education to provide teachers and accommodation for them. It is a curious fact that in a Debate on education there is nothing but a series of denials from
the Treasury Bench and, therefore, I must repeat what is set forth on page 3 of this document—

Duchess of ATHOLL: What document?

Mr. COVE: It is the Report of 1926–27, the latest Report. This is what it says:
In these circumstances, it is not surprising to find that the number of large classes containing over 50 children under the age of 11 has increased.
I am mentioning this not only from the point of view of the size of classes but in relation to the whole policy outlined by the President of the Board to-night. I wish the Noble Lord were present at the moment, but I must say this, that the reorganisation scheme so proudly enunciated by him to-night has this tremendous danger in it, that children below the age of 11, instead of having skilled and efficient teachers and an equal number of teachers, instead of having the educational amenities and facilities in the school buildings which they ought to have, are going to be in a very much worse position under the scheme propounded by the Noble Lord. Again, the Noble Lady shakes her head. In his speech this evening, the President of the Board said that we were going to have the Hadow Report brought into being: that the future schemes of education authorities were to be based upon that Report. Most of the Labour party has endorsed that Report, and one would imagine that the Noble Lord has endorsed it, too. One would imagine from his speech to-night that he was very anxious for, indeed that he was urging, local authorities to put this Report into operation, but that he was not going to hurry them or have anything unscientifically done; that he was going to ask them to take their time and leisure to create a scientific organization, so that no mistakes might be made and that waste might be eliminated.
I put it to the Noble Lady: Does the President of the Board of Education accept the two fundamental principles embodied in that Report? The first is that the Hadow Report cannot be brought into being unless you raise the school age. Does the President of the Board accept that proposition? Does the Noble Lord accept the policy of raising the school age, with the Labour party's policy of maintenance grants for these children? Does he accept the
policy that poverty is to be no bar to children receiving a full and free secondary education? The second fundamental principle is, that all education at 11-plus, as it is called, should be secondary education. Does he accept that proposition? I see that the Noble Lord is now in his place. If I get a favourable answer on this point, my speech will be cut short and the children of the country will benefit. In that case, I do not mind my speech being cut short. I repeat my question: Are the fundamental principles of the Hadow Report accepted? First, the raising of the school age, and, secondly, that all education at the age of 11-plus should be secondary education?
As I followed the scheme outlined tonight by the Noble Lord, necessarily very sketchily, secondary education for all above 11 years of age is not accepted as a principle by the Board of Education. What does secondary education mean? It means much smaller classes than 40 or 50 or 60. As a matter of fact, in the report somewhere the Board of Education has complained about the size of classes in secondary schools, and they hope for classes of about 35. Classes of 40 no longer exist. Will the size of classes in your 11-plus schools be reduced? Will you have your specialist teachers and better buildings? Will you have your playing fields? Will you have, in short, all the educational facilities and social amenities that characterise the secondary school? No. I want to draw the Noble Lord's attention to the suggested scheme in Wiltshire, which I find in the "Warminster Journal" for Friday, 4th May. There is a scheme outlined for this reorganisation to take place on the basis of 11-plus. About half-a-dozen schools are to be decapitated, certain schools are to be closed, and this is what is left in the elementary schools. They are small schools, and their staff is to be: In Corsley, one bead teacher and one supplementary teacher: in Heytesbury school, one head teacher and one supplementary teacher; in Horningsham school, one head teacher, one supplementary teacher: in Long-bridge Deverill and Crockerton schools, one head teacher, one supplementary teacher; and in Sutton Veney, one head teacher and one supplementary teacher.
Are there supplementary teachers in secondary schools?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Village schools.

Mr. COVE: Never mind about village schools. The village child ought to have a properly trained teacher. Is this the Liberal policy?

Mr. BROWN: The Liberal policy stands for the facts and all the facts.

Mr. COVE: They are only small schools, and therefore they are to have unqualified teachers.

Mr. BROWN: Not at all. I did not mention unqualified teachers. That is your usual unfair way. You are noted for it.

Mr. COVE: I am sorry the hon. Member got angry. I was giving the staff of the elementary schools that were left below the age of 11.

Lord E. PERCY: Below?

Mr. COVE: Yes. The Noble Lord seems to agree with Liberals—a new coalition in education. I was explaining to my hon. Friends on my left that these schools are going to be staffed with one head teacher and one supplementary. You cannot justify a school of this kind even in a small village. I suppose the, supplementary will teach the infants. The poor head teacher will have classes one, two, three, four and five; he will have to divide himself between four or five classes. Is that what they do at Eton? Is that what they do at Harrow? The Noble Lord laughs. Has yet to learn, after all this time and all the circulars he has written and all the speeches he has made, education and administrative, that. this period of child life is as important as any other period? Has he get to learn that the stages of education beginning at five are of equal importance with the stage reached at 16 or 11-plus or any other fictitious psychological age? There is a good deal of fictitious psychology in many of these demarcations of age. One year is as important as another year. To generalise, I say that in your schemes of reorganisation, I see still lurking increased difficulties, increased injustice and increased dangers for the ordinary elementary schools of this country—fewer people on the staff, and a less qualified
staff. We wish, as a Labour party, to see more teachers in your ordinary elementary schools, better qualified teachers in those schools, and I class the elementary schools together in town and country. If you are to have educational opportunities equalised, you should have equal opportunities in your ordinary elementary schools.
Finally, I find in this scheme that the secondary school that was existing there is to be abolished, and this new modern school is to take its place, with 320 children and a staff of seven teachers and one head teacher. Including the head teacher, that is 40 in a class. The head teacher ought not to be tied down to a class and, therefore, the average is above 40. Will the Noble Lady get, up and say, on behalf of the Board of Education, that a standard of 40 and over in a class is a secondary standard It certainly is not a secondary standard, and the whole danger behind this scientific reorganisation of education is that you are going to substitute for true secondary education, secondary education that ought. to be backed by maintenance grants, an inferior grade of education in order to fob the workers off from that broad general education they ought to receive.
I want to raise one other aspect. I am not against vocational education under a Socialist system. The clash and the dualism comes under the capitalist system. If you have vocational education early in your system you get the pre-destination of children to one particular job. You talk about provision for craftsmanship. I am not afraid of provision for craftsmanship, but, as a matter of fact, a study and analysis of the economic, technical, and industrial tendencies in modern society seem to show that modern society needs fewer and fewer technicians at the top and a greater mass of unskilled labour at the bottom. The logic of the machine is to negate skill. The machine is converting skilled work into unskilled work. Anyone who doubts that should read in his leisure time the analysis of Mr. Arthur Pound of the tendencies of American education and American industry in the book called 'The Iron Man,' which analyses what these tendencies are. Anyone acquainted with the tendencies of education in this country knows full well that vocations
are changing and that the needs of craftsmanship are changing. What is craftsmanship and skill to-day becomes unskill to-morrow.
It seems to me that the Hadow Report is sound in this respect, that what it wants is the raising of the school age. Every normal child, not selected child—away with your examinations—is fit for secondary education, not necessarily a bookish education but a secondary education, with no distinction in the size of classes, no class distinctions as far as playing fields and social amenities and all the rest that makes up the secondary atmosphere are concerned, equal regulations for all, a variety of type supplying the needs of a varied life, supplying the needs of the developing organism which you have in every child. Why, you cannot see the individuality of each child. My own boy, and he is a very normal boy—he may be subnormal—has learned to read in about a couple of months because he was able to be taught by his mother as one and not as one of 40 or 50. The progress of the individual child depends upon these equal facilities, and I make bold to say that the policy of the Board of Education is not merely stagnation; it is reaction. There is no progress, and we shall find that the old battle of the Labour party will have to he waged more intensely than ever for full, free secondary education, with maintenance grants for the children of the working classes.

Mr. COWAN: It has not been unusual for a Scottish Member to intervene in an English education Debate, just as it has not been unusual for an English Member to intervene in a Scottish Debate. There is, indeed, one very important reason why Scottish Members should be keenly interested in the matters discussed here to-day. As Members of the Committee are no doubt aware, Scottish finance depends upon the amount of money spent in England. The whole basis of our educational system is that our financial needs should be met within the limits of eleven-eightieths of what is spent in England. It follows, of course, that Scotland as a whole takes a very lively interest in all matters of educational progress or reaction in England. I have, therefore, listened to-day with the keenest interest to the speech of the President of the Board of Education and to other speeches
dealing with various details. I join with those who regret that greater progress has not been made in the way of eliminating unsatisfactory buildings and reducing large classes. But I think there is a greater reason than the financial reason for a Scottish Member taking part in our discussion to-clay. It has often been said that knowledge knows no bounds of nationality or race or creed, and it is true to say that if one is interested in education anywhere, one must necessarily be interested in education everywhere.
There are two points on which I wish to speak. The first is the departure indicated by the President of the Board of Education with regard to the training of teachers. That, I think, is a matter of congratulation to the Board. It is perhaps an exaggeration to say that the teacher is really the great factor in education, unless one says it with certain qualifications; but it is to Scottish people somewhat difficult to understand when, as is the case to-day, we have 20 per cent. of the teachers in the elementary schools' of England uncertificated. Therefore as educationists we must all rejoice at what has been done, and I trust it will prove a very fruitful step forward. It may interest the Members of this Committee to know that in Scotland we have now less than one per cent. of uncertificated teachers in the schools. Further than that, after a long period of effort the position has been achieved that from two years ago onwards every man entering the teaching profession must be a graduate, and in the present year I think there was a larger number of women graduates entering the profession than non-graduates. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said that he trusted that the President of the Board of Education would take steps to see that in the appointment of headmasters due regard was given to qualifications in arts and crafts. I trust that while due regard will be given to such qualifications no undue regard will be given, because I think the first essential for those who have to deal with children in our elementary schools, and who have very little chance in any other direction, is that they should be brought into contact with men and women of some degree of culture.
There is a second matter with which I venture to deal, because it is one in re-
gard to which we have long looked to England for a lead. We have been very sorry in Scotland to note that the number of children between three and five now attending school has been very seriously reduced. Those of us who are interested in education in Scotland have long felt that in this respect we came far behind England and we are very sorry that England is giving up the lead which it had taken with regard to nursery schools and early provision for children. Having spent many years in connection with school work, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the most necessary reform is along the line of the physical well-being of the child. I have seen for many years much waste of effort in attempts to teach children who were not in a fit condition to be taught, and I trust that, while every chance will be taken to advance intellectual opportunity, there will disappear from our midst cases such as we heard of to-day, where children are supposed to be educated on a very slender physical basis.
I must confess that I have an admiration for the President of the Board of Education for the way he puts his case. We may or we may not agree with his policy, but we certainly admire the courage and the ability with which he advocates it. We look forward to advance in various directions, and more particularly with regard to the provision for children over the age of 14. If it is not possible to raise the age at once, or even within five years, I think we may fairly ask that the Board of Education should make such a survey of the needs of the country that it will be possible to do so within at least a reasonable time. I thank the Committee for having given a Scottish Member an opportunity to intervene for a few moments in this Debate.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I should like for a moment or two to raise a question that I have raised previously in these Debates from a rather different angle with regard to cases of abnormal children. But before I do so, may I just say this to the Noble Lady opposite? I am sorry that the Noble Lord was not present when the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) made reference to the case of Mr. John Towers. I should like to add this point to it. Since the case of Mr. John Towers, we have had another important case relating to Mr. Gregory and Mr.
O'Malley, whose conduct was inquired into by a Committee. As a result of that inquiry both were dismissed from the Civil Service. After a matter of two months ago an announcement was made in this House last week—an announcement with which all individuals and parties agreed—that Mr. O'Malley should be reinstated in his position in the Civil Service. I think the Noble Lord, when giving reconsideration to the case of Mr. Towers, should take into account the fact that there was no protest by any member of any party when the announcement was made by the Prime Minister that Mr. O'Malley was to be reinstated in the Civil Service. I am not going into a comparison of the gravity of the offences but the Noble Lord should bear in mind the fact of Mr. O'Malley's re-instatement when he is going into the case of Mr. Towers. I wish to draw attention once again to the question of the education of abnormal children. It is not an exciting topic and does not provoke flaming headlines in the Press but the Noble Lord realises that it is a difficult problem. Speaking at a conference not long ago, he said, in reference to the special schools:
This is quite the most difficult problem that we have to meet in education.
I am sorry that in his speech to-day he did not follow up what he said on previous occasions on the subject of crippled children. In previous Debates, he told us of the importance of orthopedic treatment in the cure of crippled children. I think the last report of the medical officer of health says, in regard to this treatment, that "we are beginning to see results." Perhaps the Noble Lady who is, I understand, to wind up the Debate, will tell us whether those results can yet be put into tabular form. Those of us who use our eyes as we go about every day, realise that there are fewer crippled children--and crippled adults, too, for that matter—to be seen in the streets to-day than there were formerly. I wonder if figures are available to show whether there is an actual decrease or not. I endeavoured to get some figures from the President of the Board of Education this afternoon, and I gathered, to my surprise, that the figures showed an increase, but he went out of his way to explain that they included children who are undergoing open-air treatment.
We all hope that the number of crippled children will rapidly diminish with the development of orthopedic treatment. At the same time it was never more essential than it is now that these children should be taught in very small classes, where they can get a great deal of individual attention. The crippled child, in order to earn a living on leaving school, has not only to be as clever as the normal child but has to be more clever. I have found that employers generally are sympathetic towards the idea of employing crippled boys and girls, but, after all, they are not philanthropists but business people. Crippled children have to bear two great handicaps in this matter. In the first place, they have to be above the average in skill at the particular work for which they have been trained. Then, when they have accomplished that standard, as most of them do, they have to face a still greater handicap. The average employer frequently objects to employing crippled boys or girls because of their special liability to accidents. In these days of workmen's compensation, it is a serious thing for an employer to take any additional risk of that kind. I have a suggestion to make to the Noble Lord in regard to that matter. Has the Board considered the possibility, through some extension of after-care work, of providing from education funds, a payment to meet the employer's risk in that respect, so that crippled employés will be able to start work on an equal standing with other employés. I think that suggestion is worth consideration. There are many employers who, but for this risk of accident, would go out of their way to employ crippled boys and girls.
The other point which I wanted to raise concerns the extraordinary position which seems to exist in reference to mentally defective children. In this matter confusion is being worse confounded, and I hope the Noble Lady may be able to clear up the matter. Last Thursday, in reply to a question, the Noble Lord told me that 18 London schools for mentally defective children had been closed and he gave figures to show that the number of children on the rolls of the special schools in London, after remaining stationary from 1918 to 1924—there was a difference of eight in that period—had suddenly, between 1924 and 1928, fallen from 7,000 to 5,500. These are round figures. In
other words, it would appear that there was a decline of 20 per cent. in four years in the number of mentally defective children in London. Are we to throw up our hats and cheer and hail this as a sign that mental deficiency is disappearing? To make the matter more confused, the Noble Lord emphasised the fact that there had been no change in the standard of ascertainment which would go to show that mental deficiency among London school children had fallen by 20 per cent. in four years.
In my joy and pleasure at the good news that we were rapidly becoming a saner people, I pursued my inquiries and put a question to-day as to the number of mentally defective children in Birmingham. To my surprise, the figure given shows a considerable increase in Birmingham. Are we to take it that mental deficiency is increasing in Birmingham and diminishing in London? I do not want to give the Noble Lord too much work in answering questions as to all the different towns but all this is very bewildering, coupled with the uncertainty as to the general position which exists among teachers and people who take an interest in the question. Is it the case that some policy, which nobody understands except the Board of Education, is being worked out quietly?

Lord E. PERCY indicated dissent.

Mr. MORRISON: Then perhaps the Noble Lady will explain whether the figures in the London special schools have been reduced by 20 per cent. in four years and whether that means a net reduction of 20 per cent. in mentally defective children in London. When she has explained that perhaps she will also explain why the number in Birmingham is increasing while the number in London is diminishing. When we try to find out what it all means either the Noble Lord or the Noble Lady will tell us that a Departmental Committee is sitting on the question. They shake their heads wisely and say, "Have you not heard that this Committee has been sitting for four or five years; that special schools have been established for about 20 years and that we have reached the stage when the whole question has to be discussed?" I think the last statement which the Noble Lady made on this question, was in December
last six months ago. The Noble Lady said—I quote from a Press report:
I regret the fact that anxiety is being felt as to the future of special schools. I think you are awaiting the Report of the Special Committee which has been sitting for some time at the Board of Education dealing with this big problem. It is not possible for me to say anything more than this.
That was in December last, and I want to ask the Noble Lady to-night, six months afterwards, if it is possible for her to say anything more now. We understand that this Committee finished its deliberations several months ago, and what some of us are afraid of—and I may as well be candid about it—is they the policy of the Board is being worked out and that it is likely to take a year or two before the Report of this Committee is issued. Everybody knows that these special schools and the methods of treatment for these special children are in the melting pot, but I think the Committee has had long enough in which to make its report, and the Board must have sufficient information, to make some statement on the subject.
Finally, I want to say this: On previous occasions when we have raised this question in the House the Noble Lord has twitted some of us, and myself in particular, that what we want to do is to put every child who is abnormal in any way in a special school. That is not our policy at all. We do not demand that every abnormal child shall be put into a special school, but we do say that it is the duty of the State to provide every educable child with educational facilities. Our case is that special children ought to receive an education in harmony with their handicapped faculties, and that unless they do they will be come a higher charge upon the State. I hope the Noble Lady may be able to say something, not only to satisfy my idle curiosity, but to satisfy the curiosity of a very great number of people who are interested in what the Noble Lord said was quite the most difficult problem in education to-day. We have the extraordinary position of some education authorities trying to get their teachers to go in for special courses of training in order to become teachers in these special schools, and they cannot get any applications because the teachers themselves have no idea as to whether there is any future for them in such
schools. If the Noble Lady can shed any further enlightenment on this bewildering position, I am sure that those who are interested in the subject will be very grateful to her.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Before I come to discuss the larger issues that have been raised in the course of the Debate to-day, I should like to make reference to one or two smaller points that are yet not small points in themselves. I wish the Noble Lord were present at the moment, because I want to return to the discussion of this deplorable case of Mr. Towers, from the North of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Welling borough (Mr. Cove) made an impassioned speech—and I think quite justifiably so—in regard to the treatment of this case by the Board of Education. I can sympathise with those at the Board of Education who have to sit in judgment upon these cases, because I recall with some interest some of the complexities that arise in connection with them, from my own experience at the Board. But there has been a specific charge advanced against the Noble Lord to-night, and I think we have the right to expect from the Noble Lady a precise and specific answer to that charge. What is the charge? It is that Mr. John Towers has been punished by the President of the Board of Education in such a way as to indicate that he has not been dealt with specially on the ground of professional misconduct, but specifically on the ground of political bias. I am not at the moment subscribing or otherwise to that charge. All that I say is that I had the privilege of hearing discussion upon this case at the conference of the National Union of Teachers this year at Cam bridge, and the Noble Lord will know that the National Union of Teachers, in the main, is composed of people who are not members of the Labour party by any means. There are, of course, members belonging to all political parties there, but the Noble Lord knows, I should think, that the majority of the delegates to the National Union of Teachers would be mainly supporters of either the Conservative party or the Liberal party; and yet I am absolutely certain that there is scarcely a man or a woman inside that conference—Tory, Liberal or Labour— who is not absolutely convinced, rightly
or wrongly, that political considerations have entered into this decision, that the fact that Towers was an active propagandist for the Labour movement in Durham has landed him into this unfortunate position.
I am not necessarily stating my own view at all, but I am sure that the Noble Lord will recognise the justice of the point, that it will be disastrous from any point of view if the idea once gets out, whether rightly entertained or otherwise, that a person holding opinions that are not acceptable to the President of the Board of Education at any given moment is to be mulcted in a decision involving, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) quite rightly pointed out, not merely a suspension from the Civil Service for some three, four or six months, but a life sentence, his bread and butter gone. And, after all, no one could dream of comparing the offence—and it was a grave offence, if you like—with the offence of those two civil servants, one of whom has just recently been re-established in his position. I am not stating my own personal view, except that I am exceedingly anxious that the idea shall not even go forth that political considerations enter into the judgments of the Board of Education concerning delinquency on the part of teachers.
So much for that one point, on which I think we are entitled to have a very specific assurance tonight. The other, smaller point, but still important, is one which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) raised, in regard to the subject matter of a deputation that waited upon the Noble Lord yesterday or to-day on the vexed question, with us, of the attendance of school children at air displays at Hendon. There is a feeling that it is a little undesirable, not to put it higher than that, that special arrangements should be made for school children to attend a display like that of last year, when there was a bombing of a native village, and the children were instructed on how we can deal with the subject-races when they prove recalcitrant. It is an undesirable sort of exhibition, to say the least, and I beg the. Noble Lord, if he wants to give the children variety in their experience, to
let them have displays of civil aviation with no taint of militarism.
I turn to the purely educational questions which we have before us. My right hon. Friend, the Ex-President of the Board of Education, made a reference to the question of Abertillery, and I would like to carry that point a little further. Fortunately, the difficulty which arose at Abertillery did not land us in the awkward situation which many people apprehended. I am not blind to -the fact that the Noble Lord was probably extremely anxious to avoid any breakdown in the national agreement.concerning the application of the Burnham scales, but one point of principle arose from that situation, and I raise it because there are other districts in South Wales that might perhaps be in a similar predicament. Let us hope not. The difficulty in Abertillery, it has been suggested to me—and I am not sure that I could not even quote speeches by some of the "Big Three," as we call them—the difficulty at Abertillery, there was reason to suspect, was largely created by a ukase or edict issued by the Ministry of Health. This is not the time to discuss the work of that Ministry, but it is important to know whether the Ministry of Health is now beginning to arrogate to itself the right to determine how much money shall, or shall not be, spent upon educational purposes. Is a third master now entering into this matter? It is enough to have the Treasury to determine how much the Noble Lord may, or may not, spend, but if we are to have the Minister of Health as well, it is time,that we asked where exactly we stand.
Several local authorities in South Wales are autonomous areas in matters of education, and many of them are in grave financial difficulty. They have had to appear before the Minister of Health, and the Minister says, "You must appoint three, or four, or five people to be an almost unchallengable authority.in your areas, and you must reduce your orates below a certain figure." What does that mean? It means that the Minister of Health indirectly, and I sometimes suspect deliberately, is trying to place himself in the position of determining how far educational progress should be registered in any given area.
That is an important question of administrative principle, and we ought to have an assurance on the point. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), made an eloquent appeal, as she usually does, to the Minister of Education to look with greater sympathy upon nursery schools. When the Noble Lady, who is replying to-night, spoke last year, she implied that the Board was not able to develop this policy of establishing nursery schools, largely because the expenditure was somewhat forbidding. I admit that the expense in many areas may prove to be a considerable problem, but, at the same time, do not let us exaggerate it. The expense of providing nursery schools need not be greater, if as great, per child than the cost per child in elementary schools. One could refer to illustrations. There is the case of a school at Derby, where the cost per head is just under £12; and a nursery school at Birmingham, where the cost is just slightly over £12.

Lord E. PERCY: Does that include loan charges?

Mr. JONES: I am not sure. The Birmingham figure does, I think. At the Salford nursery school the cost is £11 8s. I do not know whether that includes loan charges. The point is that, in the end, it is much cheaper for a Government Department to help to preserve health than to cure disease. It is a far sounder policy. Last night, we had a speech from the Minister of Health, in which he implored the Committee to realise that, if he were to push forward certain administrative reforms in the matter of public health, they would cost money. Among the great reforms which were indicated was an attack upon the terrible problem of rheumatism in its various forms. It is demonstrable that much of this health difficulty with which the children of the elementary schools are confronted, is avoidable and can be removed if we take it at an early age, and the nursery school might very usefully be used for that purpose.
I do not propose to follow the discussion, which has rightly taken place, upon the policy of the Noble Lord in regard to elementary schools, and especially in regard to large classes, except to make this observation. The hon. Member for
Windsor (Mr. Somerville) seemed to put up a case as an old teacher—and I was sorry to hear him say it—that, after all, there is no great danger or difficulty in a teacher having a class of 50 or 60. I happen to have experience of teaching a class of 50 and 60, and if there is one thing that you cannot secure in a class of 60, it is the thing which the hon. Member asked for as a pre-requisite for success, namely, homogeneity. You cannot expect a class of children of 50 or 60 to be all alike. They are not like marbles in a row. They are 50 or 60 separate personalities, each different in a particular way, and because they are different, because they vary so infinitely, it is in the highest degree essential that the teacher, in order to be successful in a class, shall have time to establish intimate relationship between himself and each pupil. It is on the ground that it is impossible for a teacher to teach a class of 50 or 60—we can only lecture or talk to a class of 50 or 60—that we ask for smaller classes in elementary schools.
I want to-night to speak mainly about secondary education, because the record of the Noble Lord on elementary education has been adequately dealt with already. From the statistical tables on page 145 in the second part of the Report we find that the total number of full-time pupils in secondary schools on 31st March, 1927, was 371,493. I believe I shall be right if I say that quite a number of people are unaware that there are preparatory schools in association with some of our secondary schools. I admit that it will be easy for the Noble Lord or the Noble Lady to say in reply that very little was done in this matter during the short period of our life as a Labour Government, but I can reply that nine months is nine months and that one can do very little in that time. I do not conceal the fact that I have never liked this preparatory school system. I think it is unjust: it involves a loss of secondary school education to many children who would otherwise be able to obtain it. Of the 371,493 pupils to whom I have referred, 16,280 are children below the age of 10, representing 4.3 per cent. Before we are told that it is not possible to increase the number of free places in order to meet the demand for secondary education, can we be assured that these
16,280 children are not excluding from secondary schools a number of older children who ought to be there? What is a preparatory school? As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) quite rightly observed, the sending of these children to preparatory schools is mere snobbery, coupled with a good deal of careful calculation.
For all practical purposes a preparatory school is part and parcel of a secondary school. The staff, who are paid on the secondary school scale, are highly qualified teachers, and people send their children there partly because they dislike the idea of their children associating with the children in the public elementary schools and partly because they think they will be staking out a claim for a place in the secondary school later on. A system of that sort is most unjust. Here are people getting the best sort of education from the best qualified teachers, almost every one of whom is a graduate, and at the same time safeguarding the automatic progress of their children to the secondary schools when the time arrives for it. In doing this, they reserve to themselves space for 16,280 pupils. I have only to observe about the process that if these people, out of a desire for snobbery, do not want their children to associate with the children of the common herd in the public elementary schools, they ought to pay for their snobbery, and send their children to schools specially provided for the purpose, and the room those children now occupy in those schools will be available for secondary school purposes.
I turn to another aspect of the secondary school accommodation problem. The Noble Lord this evening not only said that all is well with the Board, but he also stated that elementary school accommodation is as it should be, and that the secondary school accommodation is not bad. Let us look at the facts. On page 17 of the Memorandum on the Board of Education Estimates, we find some very interesting figures. They show that the percentage of secondary schools who charge no fee is 5.2 per cent., and those whose fees do not exceed £8 8s. is 18.5 per cent. of the total. Those who charge fees exceeding £8 8s. but not exceeding £15 15s. form 63.9 per cent. of the total, and those who charge fees exceeding £15 15s. amount to 12.4
per cent. of the total. [Laughter.] The Noble Lord laughs, but we shall see later what explanation he has to offer.

Lord E. PERCY: You have got the figures all wrong.

Mr. JONES: I have quoted the figures from the Memorandum. No doubt we shall get an explanation presently, but meanwhile perhaps the Noble Lord will repress himself. Our claim is that the secondary schools at this moment are not providing adequate accommodation for the poorer children of this country. Who are the people who can afford to pay between £8 8s. and £15 15s.? Who are the people who can afford to pay up to £8 8s.? They are not the very poorest people, to say the least of it, and when you talk of the 63.9 per cent. they are people who are in tolerably affluent circumstances. I do not complain that these people are in possession of these secondary educational facilities, but what I say is that before we can be satisfied with a policy of stagnation we really ought to make a greater effort to increase the percentage from 5.2 per cent. to something equivalent to what the other classes enjoy.
When I turn to page 16, I find some more significant figures. There are two columns on page 16, the first of which gives the number of pupils who pay no fees, while the second gives the number of fee-paying pupils. I admit quite frankly that from 1920 to 1926 there has been a substantial increase in the number of children paying no fees who have passed from public elementary schools, but from the other column it will be found that the number of fee-paying pupils passing from the public elementary schools has remained almost exactly the same from 1920 to 1926, the number in 1920 being 109,214, and the number in 1926, 109,408; that is to say, there was almost complete stagnation.

Lord E. PERCY: Fee-paying pupils.

Mr. JONES: Yes, but the Noble Lord will get no comfort from that, and I will tell him why. The children who pass from public elementary schools can only do so, in the main, by securing scholarships. If they fail to get scholarships, that is the end of the matter as far as most of them are concerned. While the number of children who,
having failed to get scholarships from public elementary schools, can find it possible to pay, remains almost exactly the same, in the case of the others the number in 1920 was 97,677, and in 1926, 107,853. What really is happening, therefore, is that the poor children, simply because of their poverty, cannot look at the idea of paying fees, and, therefore, those who are able to provide a premium get the places that the others cannot take up.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite often argue as though rich or well-to-do people were providing education for the children of the poor out of their pockets, but as a matter of fact, even in the case of those who pay 15 guineas, the cost of their education is not 15 guineas. The average cost, excluding loan charges altogether, is over £20 per head, while the fees are only 15 guineas, so that a child whose parents can find a premium of 15 guineas can secure an education which costs £20 or £30, whereas the other child, whose parents cannot find that premium, gets no secondary education at all. A child of comparatively well-to-do parents who goes to a grant-aided secondary school gets education "on the cheap." The point, therefore, that I want to put to the Noble Lord, and really it is one of some importance, is that, until we have changed our secondary education system in such a way as to make passage from the elementary school to the secondary school, of whatever kind, as natural and normal as passing from one standard to another—in other words, until our secondary education is a system of free education—these unjust inequalities will still prevail among us. They are unjust in the sense that they place a barrier against the poorer child because of his poverty, and give a handicap in favour of the rich child because of his riches.
The Noble Lord has referred—and I was glad to hear him—to a proposal to bring the training colleges into closer touch with the universities. I think that is a step in the right direction and one long overdue, because the isolation of these training colleges from the universities is not only bad for the colleges as institutions but is bad from the standpoint of developing among the teachers too narrow and limited an outlook for the purpose of the work they have before them. On the other hand I have heard apprehensions expressed by
one or two people who know more about the internal work of university life than I do lest this scheme of development by areas may not tend to a sort of parochialism in the matter of the efforts and the activities of the Universities. I have heard the fear expressed and I presume it is entertained by some people who are competent to judge.
The noble Lord spoke a good deal about his proposals concerning technical education, and there again I was very glad to hear him speak, but I should like to make one plea with regard to areas like the one I represent. They are areas of one industry only, and on account of the difficulties now confronting them they cannot expect very much relief. Indeed their destiny seems to be that large numbers of the younger men must inevitably leave them for a livelihood. I hope, therefore, if we are to see a development of technical institutions in these areas, an attempt will be made through those institutes as far as possible to equip the people with a knowledge of other trades than the one that prevails in the area. It is vital. One of the mistakes of our evening classes in South Wales particularly is that we have trained innumerable colliery managers, colliery foremen, colliery firemen, colliery this and colliery that. Hundreds of people have been attending classes night after night. I do not say it is wrong, but the effect has been that they have only been thinking all the time in terms of mines when they ought really to have been thinking in terms of some other trade. I urge upon the Noble Lord that if he is going to press upon these authorities the development of technical education, he will keep that simple point clearly in mind. We have moved a reduction of the Vote because we really believe the Noble Lord's policy in practice has not come up to his professions. He has failed to maintain the policy he announced in his first speech at that Box, the policy of continuity in educational progress. Because of his failure in that respect we are going to carry the Vote to a Division.

Duchess of ATH0LL: An hon. Member, speaking not long ago from the Liberal Benches, said that in a Debate such as this, where so many varied points have been brought forward, it was rather difficult to see the wood for the trees, and
in rising at the end of a Debate of a character such as he so well described, a Debate in which I think the subjects brought up have been even more numerous and more varied than usual, I hope the Committee will not expect me to do too much clearing of the wood, particularly as I cannot help feeling that the wood on this occasion has been encumbered with a good deal more brushwood and lumber of a rather secondary character than usual. The first question with which I shall deal is not one which I would describe in that way. I shall reply first to the question which was addressed to my right hon. Friend by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) and later addressed to me by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith) in regard to the Central Library proposal. The Departmental Committee recommended that a Government grant should be made to the Central Library as an interim arrangement for a limited period pending the reconstitution of the Central Library as a special department of the British Museum. I understand that the Trustees of the Museum feel some doubt about the Committee's suggestion in regard to the relation of the Library to the Museum. So long as the question of the future constitution of the Central Library remains in doubt, it is impossible to come to a decision in regard to an interim grant. It would be undesirable and, indeed, contrary to the whole trend of national policy in the past, that an institution whose purpose it is to lend books to students should come to depend upon grants from the Board of Education and should thus tend to fail under the Board's control. It must therefore, in my right hon. Friend s opinion, be an essential condition of any such interim grant that it should be non-recurrent, and that the question of the permanent constitution of the Central Library should first be settled before the question of a grant is considered. In these circumstances the Government propose to ask the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries to consider the problem of the Library in relation to the position of the British Museum Library, and I hope, at the same time, that the Central Library itself will work out its own proposals. When the question of the permanent constitution of a Central Library has been settled, the
Government will be prepared to consider whether an interim non-recurrent grant is required for the purpose of tiding over the Library until the new arrangements for its maintenance are completed.
Then my right hon. Friend was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) in regard to the position of percentage grants, and as he had not time to deal with the question in his speech he has asked me to make a statement on his behalf. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Minister of Health foreshadowed, in a recent statement in connection with the Budget scheme, a grant system which would give special consideration to increases of population in relation to rateable value. I think my hon. Friend will be well advised to await the development of these proposals. When the Minister of Health places his proposals before the local authorities, the Essex County Council will doubtless consider how far they meet the peculiar needs of their county, and, in so far as they do not meet those needs, they will doubtless consider whether they would wish for a modification or extension of those proposals. I can only say that the solution of the difficulties of the Essex County Council lies in this direction rather than in the modification of the existing percentage grant system, the difficulties of which my right hon. Friend has already explained to the Chairman of the Essex Education Committee.
Next. I come to the questions addressed to me by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) and also to some extent by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans). The first question, jointly asked by these two Members, was what was the position in regard to the proposed Welsh National Advisory Council in the Board of Education? The reply is that the University of Wales has set up a representative committee which is considering the advisability of asking for such an Advisory Council and the constitution and functions such a Council should possess if it should be considered advisable to appoint one. Probably the hon. Member before long may be in a better position than I am to know how, the matter stands.
The hon. Member for Cardigan also asked a question about rural education in Wales. A Departmental Committee is
sitting to consider that matter. The hon. Member further asked a question with regard to the holding up of buildings in areas such as Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. The hon. Member might be excused, perhaps, for not realising that it rests with the Ministry of Health to sanction loans for local authorities, including local education authorities, but I was rather surprised to find that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who was my predecessor at the Board of Education, forgot that fact.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The point that I dealt with was not the sanctioning of loans for buildings but the question of salaries.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Member. I thought he referred also to the question of loans. I am glad to find that his recollection of procedure is so correct. All loans for capital expenditure must receive the sanction of the Ministry of Health. The hon. Member for Cardigan must know far better than I can the financial position of areas such as Monmouthshire and Glamorgan at the present time, and I do not think he will be surprised that, under the circumstances, some loans have been temporarily held up, because other matters more urgent than the question of buildings have to be dealt with just now in that part of the country.
The hon. Member for the University of Wales made an appeal to the Board that technical education should not be of too narrow a character, and that it should go side by side with general education. I should like to reassure him on that point. If he studies the curricula, in the junior technical schools, he will see how much general education is given along with technical training. I have the pleasure of being on a Departmental Committee which is considering part-time education, and we have had it borne in upon us how much general education there is in technical classes, particularly in the junior ones, where the instruction is mostly general.
A point which has been impressed upon us by many is the need for more training in craftsmanship in technical schools. The training tends more towards scientific principles than to crafts. One of the needs of the country is for more craft training. Then the hon. Member for Peni-
stone, in addition to asking a question about the Central Library, which I have answered, put a question relating to the Workers' Educational Association. I can only refer him to an answer given recently by my right hon. Friend on that subject, in which my right hon. Friend showed his appreciation of the fact that the Workers' Educational Association is a body of great educational importance and has a great educational record. He looks to them to maintain that educational record, and has no desire to be inquisitorial. The same hon. Member was rather exercised about the effect on children in some schools of taking part in a competition for a travelling scholarship promoted by some daily journal, of which I must frankly confess I am not a reader. I cannot pretend to give him any information on the subject—

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Does not the Noble Lady read it on Sunday?

Duchess of ATHOLL: There are other ways of spending my Sunday. All I can say on this subject is that it seems to me part of the duty of the teacher to prevent the attention of children being distracted from their lessons by inducements from the outside world which may encroach upon school hours, and so far as taking part in a competition of this sort may be injurious to school work, or too exciting and absorbing, it is rather a fine test of the teacher's powers of discipline and his power to induce concentration on their lessons on the part of his pupils. Then we come to the question of the attendance of children at the proposed display of the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friend in his desire to shield children from seeing performances which might be too much for their nerves, or which might seem to glorify war in their eyes, gave the House, I think, a wrong impression of the position in regard to this display. He spoke about the Board of Education organising the attendance of school children at it and protested against the proposal. There is no question whatever of the Board of Education organising the attendance of children at this display or at anything of the kind.
The fact is that the Air Ministry have sent an invitation through local education authorities to the children of the schools to attend a rehearsal of the Air
Force display which is to take place shortly, but it will rest entirely with the teachers to say whether they are to be taken to the performance or not, and for the Board of Education to take the action which the hon. Member suggests would be tantamount to depriving the teachers of the option of taking the children to this performance if they and the parents of the children desire it. The hon. Member admitted, when he was on a deputation to my right hon. Friend, that there is much in this display which will be highly educational and he was very anxious to explain that he did not wish to withhold from the children a knowledge of the wonderful progress which is being made in aircraft and of the bravery, initiative and resource of the men who fly these air machines. Any sort of display of a military character which might form part of such a display is likely to form a very subsidiary part, and I do not think it should be beyond the competence of teachers if they take children to such a display afterwards to put matters in a true light before them. I think teachers should be equal to putting these things in a fair and true light, and explaining them to their pupils. We do not think of the Air Force merely as an organisation for flying, but as part of the great system by which order and peace are maintained throughout the British Empire.
Then the hon. Member for Willesden (Mr. Viant) complained about the disallowance by the Board of a proposed expenditure of £500 by the London County Council for the travelling expenses of school children to go to playing fields. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle also animadverted on the same matter, saying how very small the sum was. Although the sum was so small, the reason it was disallowed was because it was not a ease of providing travelling expenses for the children in general, and it was felt that it was preferable that money should be spent on providing opportunities for all children, rather than on merely providing travelling expenses for individuals to play in school teams. The same hon. Member made an appeal to the Board to abolish fees, on the ground, apparently, that the existence of fees tended to an assertion of superiority on the part of those children whose parents
are able to pay for them. So far as my experience of school life goes, the only superiority that anybody can claim in a school is of two kinds: either superiority on the ground of intellectual attainment, or superiority on the ground of athletic achievement.
I cannot conceive of any assertion of superiority because it happened to be the case that the parents of one child paid fees while the parents of another did not. It we turn to what usually constitutes superiority in a school, namely intellectual attainments, then we have to recognise what is a very interesting fact in our secondary schools, namely, that the children who go there on scholarships from elementary schools for the most part do extremely well and their place is usually a very good one. Hon. Members need not fear any assertion of superiority on account of the payment of fees. Again, if there were any tendency in a school on the part of any fee-paying children to assert such superiority, I should think very little of the teachers of that school, and I should think that they were falling behind the high tradition of teachers in this country if they were not able to show those children how wrong that was.
The hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) put two questions to me about Dulwich College. His first question was how many children from the elementary schools would still be in the College. The reply is that it is hoped there will be nearly 100, taking it year by year and including all the age groups, so that is fully 50 per cent. of the present number. The second question which he put to me was as to the conditions under which those children would be selected. They will be selected, just as in the past, on their work in the scholarship examinations of the London County Council. We have also to remember that the fees in this College are pretty high, and if the London County Council does not send so many boys there, it has all the more money to provide scholars with free places in other secondary schools. The responsibility still remains with the London County Council to provide secondary education for those children who have shown themselves capable of profiting by it. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) has rather excelled himself to-night. I imagine that
he has earned the right to feel a little tired after all the energy he has displayed. The first point he raised was the question of the cancellation of the certificate of Mr. John Towers. Both he and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) accused my right hon. Friend of having taken this action on political considerations.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I will not have that.

HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. I specifically said to the Noble Lady that I did not in any way subscribe to the allegation. I merely said that it was important that we should have an answer to it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to say that I have the clearest recollection of that case, and political considerations did not enter for one moment into it.

Mr. BATEY: Oh, but they did!

Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that professional inefficiency did not enter into it either. Mr. Towers in repeatedly refusing to allow children whose father was receiving no pay to go to the school canteen for their meals, even when he was instructed to do so, and in caning these two boys after they had gone to the school canteen on their father's express instruction, showed himself devoid of humanity, a quality that we expect to see in the teachers in this country. I am afraid that I have exhausted the time available and there is no time to deal with the other questions. I can only repeat that I repudiate entirely the charge of window dressing made against my right hon. Friend's administration. When hon. Members have read the Estimates Memorandum they will see that we are allowing for increased expenditure. We have allowed for an increased expenditure of £779,000 on the part of the education authorities for this year, and that fact in itself shows the expansion for which we are preparing in this year. If hon. Members will study the report they will see the progress that has taken place in many different directions. In spite of great difficulties we are proceeding steadily through the
programme which my right hon. Friend called upon the authorities to submit to him, and I have now to ask the House to agree to the Vote.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £26,215,728 be granted for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 228.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bormondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Angiesey)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Maxton, James
Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Albery, Irving James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.


Apsley, Lord
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ellis, R. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Carver, Major W. H.
England, Colonel A


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Balniel, Lord
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Clarry, Reginald George
Forrest, W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bethel, A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gadie, Lieut.-Col Anthony


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Blades, sir George Rowland
Cope, Major William
Gates, Percy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gower, Sir Robert


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Grotrian, H. Brent.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E. (Bristol, N.)
Macintyre, Ian
Sandon, Lord


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Savery, S. S.


Hacking, Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Hamilton, Sir George
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Hanbury, C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harland, A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Tasker, R Inlgo.


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Templeton, W. P.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hilton, Cecil
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Oakley, T.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pennefather, Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hudson,Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watts, Dr. T.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Preston, William
Wells, S. R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'v)
Withers, John James


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Loder, J. de V.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Looker, Herbert William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Lougher, Lewis
Rye, F. G.



Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Major


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, N. Stewart
The Marquess of Titchfield.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Captain GARRO-JONES: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the position of the law with reference to what is known as diplomatic immunity, that is to say, the immunity of diplomatic officers and their servants from
any process of law, whether in civil or criminal cases. Before giving notice of my intention to raise this question, I gave proper weight to the objections that might be advanced against such a course, and I hope that, when I have finished, the House will consider that my action has been justified. It may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly recapitulate what is the law on this question. Under the present law, it is impossible for any action, whether civil or criminal, to be brought against a foreign Sovereign, or his diplomatic representative in this country, or against certain of the servants of diplomatic representatives. I do not suggest that that diplomatic immunity should be completely abolished. It is essential that the independence of foreign monarchs, and the dignity of their representatives in this country, should be protected against action by any litigious persons, who may desire,
from various motives, to bring some kinds of action against them. But I submit that for many years past, cases have arisen which show that this law is liable to some abuse, and, furthermore, is by no means clear or equitable in its operation in different countries.
There was a case quite recently, in which the motor car of the Spanish Ambassador—His Excellency himself was not in the car—was involved in a collision with a motor cycle and sidecar. A man was driving the cycle, and his wife and child were in the sidecar. The child was seriously injured, and the other passengers were also injured. When it was sought by the driver of the cycle to bring some action against the Spanish Ambassador, the plea of diplomatic immunity was successfully raised, and, when the injured person wrote to the Spanish Ambassador, he replied with a letter in which he did not merely state that he claimed diplomatic immunity, but in which he entered at some length into the merits of the case. He attributed in strong terms, which I would not like to read to the House for several reasons, blame to the driver of the motor cycle and sidecar. Quite recently, also, there was a similar case, in which the American Ambassador's motor car was involved, and that is a case to which I would ask the particular attention of the House, because I think that it is a case—I shall not use any strong language, either on the action of the insurance company, or of the Ambassador where diplomatic immunity has been abused.
The facts are these. A car from the American Embassy was being driven by a chauffeur in the service of the Ambassador when it collided with a boy aged 14 riding a bicycle. The boy was injured. He suffered injury to his knees, including synovitis of both knees, and a certain amount of shock. He lost a considerable number of days work and his machine was damaged. He brought an action against the American Ambassador, who referred it to the insurance company. The claim was for £20. The insurance company pleaded diplomatic immunity and when the mother of the boy wrote to the American Ambassador stating that she claimed £20 the American Embassy issued a statement that £5 had been offered to the boy in full payment of his claim, and that as diplomatic immunity was a statu-
tory right of the Embassy, no further action could be taken, and it lay in the hands of the insurance company.
I suggest that diplomatic immunity is not a right, of which an Ambassador is compelled to take advantage. He may voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Courts by entering an appearance against a summons and allowing the case to go on in the usual way, and although I am not going to suggest to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he should ask the United States Ambassador to take that course, I am quoting this and two or three other cases to show that the whole subject of diplomatic immunity should be brought up for consultation between the various Powers. It is not so long ago since the car of the British Ambassador in Washington was involved in an accident. It almost seems as though these diplomatic privileges, including that of driving through traffic, engender a spirit which may be described as "Thrusting." I think motorists do describe it as "thrusting" on the part of the chauffeurs of these diplomatic motor cars. Here we have the strange coincidence that within a short space of time there have been these three cases. When the case of the British Ambassador at Washington came up for discussion in that country considerable abuse was poured upon the whole system, and both in the Senate and in Congress foreign diplomats were abused in terms which I shall certainly not reciprocate, because when we are able to see from this side how ridiculous some of these things look we realise that no good purpose is served by speaking of them in strong terms.
There are two or three other cases which I wish to quote. All diplomats who have been involved in this plea are not quite so respectable as the American and Spanish Ambassadors. There have been cases in which Sultans of semi-independent Powers have successfully pleaded this privilege. For example, there was the case of the Sultan of Johore, in 1894, I think. He came to this country and under the name of Albert Baker, engaged the attentions of a young lady. Later he was the subject of an action for breach of promise, and successfully pleaded diplomatic immunity. This is a plea which can be advanced for any conceivable form of
crime, tort, or civil wrong. I can conceive that it might be a great convenience for some hon. Members if they could enlist on the staff of some of these Ambassadors. I see the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) sitting on the Treasury Bench.

Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): May I ask the hon. Member why he selects me?

Captain GARRO-JONES: I have not been able to keep track of all the motorcar offences with which the Noble Lord has been charged. I trust the Noble Lord did not think I was referring to anything else. The Noble Lord must not pretend that his skill as a motorist and his notoriety have not penetrated to the Liberal Benches.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. and gallant Member making any allegation against me?

Captain GARRO-JONES: I was only making a suggestion that might be for the convenience of the Noble Lord. I hope I shall have a reply from the Under-Secretary. All this procedure is based upon the Diplomatic Privileges Act, which was passed in 1708. It was passed because the Muscovite Ambassador had been set upon by his creditors to a sponging house at the sign of the "Black Raven," where he was detained until the Earl of Feversham and a City merchant bailed him. Naturally he was very cross about this, and he made representations to the Foreign Office. He said that those who took part in this offence must be arrested, and, seven persons were arrested, but still he was not satisfied. Afterwards they arrested 10 more, and then the Russian Ambassador retired to Holland and wrote a letter of protest, which culminated in a letter being written by the Tsar, which stated that those involved should suffer capital punishment, and in the words of the Hansard Report of that day:
This has caused the greatest uneasiness to the Queen and the Ministers of the day.
I mention that to show that the legislation upon which this is based was passed in a moment of panic. It is not clear what are independent countries. There are many on the border line. It is
not clear who are diplomatic officers. There is a case before the Courts to decide whether an officer is a diplomatic or consular officer. The law is not clear as to what particular class of privilege is enjoyed by servants, and it is not clear whether the members of a diplomatist's family are to enjoy these privileges as well. Although up to the present we have been very fortunate in the representatives of foreign countries in this country we may not always be so fortunate, and for these reasons I hope something will be done to put the law on a proper basis.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The hon. and gallant Member gave me notice that he was going to raise this question, and we have had a certain amount of correspondence about it. It is rather difficult for me to reply in the short time which has been left for me. If the claim had been a good one, the compensation would have been paid in full. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the case of the American Ambassador the other day. I have gone into that case very carefully, and there is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure there would be none in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member if he saw the correspondence in the case, that it was not in the least the fault of the driver of the American Ambassador's car. What happened was that the chauffeur was driving very slowly, when suddenly a boy on a bicycle rode out of a side street right in front of the car, and was knocked down. The chauffeur immediately offered to take the boy to a hospital, but the boy refused, and walked off, apparently quite uninjured, and it was not until some days later that the boy's mother wrote to the Ambassador and demanded compensation. The Ambassador replied giving the address of the insurance company, and advising her to apply to them, so that in this case the boy was at absolutely no disadvantage from the point of view of diplomatic immunity, because the insurance company, if the claim was a good one, would naturally pay the money.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Surely, the right of the boy is to have his case tested by the Courts. There are witnesses who aver the contrary of what the hon. Gentleman has stated.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will read the statement of one independent witness. This independent witness was Mr. Willis Rees, of 132, Henry Street, St. John's Wood, and this is his statement:
Shortly after 5 p.m. on the 19th July, I was driving a motor car through Holles Street, proceeding in the direction of Welbeck Street, and observed another motor car coming towards me on the opposite side in the direction of Manchester Square. Suddenly a boy riding a pedal bicycle dashed out of a side street in front of the car previously mentioned. The driver of the car was going very slowly, and, as soon as the boy was struck, pulled up at once. In my opinion, the youth was entirely to blame, as he had no control over his machine, and was at the time carrying a parcel in front of him.
As a matter of fact, I do not believe for a moment that in this case the claim was a good one; if it had been, I have no doubt that the insurance company would have paid. In fact, although the claim was a bad one, the insurance company offered £10 as an ex gratia payment, which was refused.
You cannot possibly abolish the privilege of diplomatic immunity which is one of the first principles of international law. Our people enjoy them as much as diplomatists in this country do. These are representatives of friendly States. I cannot imagine anything that would be more derogatory to the dignity of a country than that its representatives should be able to be haled before a Court of Law and fined or sent to prison. These diplomatic representatives are all insured without exception, and if they did not think the insurance was going to be paid they would not go to the trouble of paying the premiums to be insured. I feel certain it would be extremely bad for the dignity of our diplomatic representatives if at any moment some unscrupulous person was able to blackmail them and hale them before a Court of Law.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.